Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

May the Conservation Measures Partnership open standards framework improve the effectiveness of the Natura 2000 European Network? A comparative analysis

May the Conservation Measures Partnership open standards framework improve the effectiveness of... Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences Vol. 8, No. 1, March 2011, 7–21 May the Conservation Measures Partnership open standards framework improve the effectiveness of the Natura 2000 European Network? A comparative analysis a b Corrado Teofili * and Corrado Battisti a b WWF Italy, Biodiversity and Conservation, via Po, 25/c, Rome 00198, Italy; Department of Environmental Planning, Province of Rome, via Tiburtina, 691 Rome, Italy (Received 22 May 2010; final version received 30 September 2010) In this essay, we compare two frameworks widely known in conservation planning and integrative environmental management: the CMP Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (OSPC), a standardized management tool, and the Natura 2000 European framework (‘‘Birds’’ and ‘‘Habitats’’ Directives). The comparative analysis is conducted using a ‘‘Rosetta Stone’’ analysis approach. We provide a detailed overview of differences and overlaps, highlighting how many steps and sub-steps of the OSPC match the Natura 2000 European framework needs. The management of Natura 2000 sites could be approached by resorting to the methodological guidance provided by the OSPC, which should have to be slightly adapted to the local specificities of each sites. The OSPC could be encompassed efficiently into the EU N2000 guidance documents as well as into management practices of each Member State, and the management approach could be improved in the light of the Standard’s idealized management framework. Nevertheless, during the application of various steps, managers should emphasize the role of direct and indirect threats and the threats-targets causal chains at the local scale. This comparison highlighted how successful strategies in conservation planning, integrative environmental management and restoration require clear conceptual frameworks. The CMP Standards appear to be a useful tool with a clear conceptual framework that may improve the effectiveness of the management within the Natura 2000 network. In this sense, the OSPC can be used as a template for such management. Keywords: conservation planning; conceptual frameworks; IUCN; EU Directives; threat analysis; Open Standards Conservation Measures Partnership; Natura Introduction Conservation planning needs logical and conceptual frameworks to develop successful strategies (Sutherland 2000; Choi 2007). In the last decade, many efforts were made to select standard protocols, useful in the elaboration of conservation plans (e.g. EPA 1998; TNC 2000; Salafsky et al. 2002; Sanderson et al. 2002; AWF 2003; TNC 2003). Among these, the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (hereafter, OSPC) are meant to provide the steps and general guidance necessary for the successful *Corresponding author. Email: c.battisti@provincia.roma.it ISSN 1943-815X print/ISSN 1943-8168 online 2011 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/1943815X.2010.529150 http://www.informaworld.com 8 C. Teofili and C. Battisti implementation of conservation programs and projects (IUCN-CMP 2007). The Conservation Measures Partnership (hereafter, CMP) is a joint venture of NGOs whose mission is to improve the practice of biodiversity conservation by developing andpromoting commonstandards. The OSPC approach provides a five step framework comprising the components of the project management cycle (IUCN-CMP 2007). The basic structure of these generic stepsiswidelyusedinconservationtoachieve clearly defined goals.The fivesteps include: (1) the conceptualization of the features and the context of the project or site to be managed; (2) the planning of actions and monitoring; (3) the implementation of plans; (4) the evaluation of the effectiveness, in order to adapt the project to maximize its results; and (5) the capturing and sharing of outcomes and good practices with key external and internal audiences (IUCN-CMP 2006a). In Europe, Member States base their nature conservation strategies on the Natura 2000 Directives (hereafter, N2000Ds), a consolidated legal framework resting mainly upon the ‘‘Habitats’’ (92/43/EEC) and ‘‘Birds’’ (2009/147/EC) Directives (Wurtzel 2008). These Directives contain lists of biodiversity targets that should represent the focus of conservation strategies in terms of selection of specific sites (the Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) in the Habitats Directive and the Special Protection Areas (SPAs) in the Birds Directive), and development of targeted measures (e.g. legal measures, action plans, and restoration projects). Monitoring of biodiversity targets is part of the conservation process included from these Directives (Wurtzel 2008; see Eltzinga et al. 2001; Keulartz and Leistra 2008 for an example of the monitoring approach). Despite their innovative approach in the European legal conservation policies, N2000Ds have been widely criticized in terms of: (i) their targets selection (e.g. biased toward species from Northern more than Mediterranean Europe), (ii) the role of the targets (e.g. focal targets per se or indicators for a wider set of species, communities, and processes), (iii) the different national approaches to design and manage the SACs and SPAs; (iv) the strategies followed by local policies (centralist and top-down vs. stakeholders-oriented and participatory bottom-up) (e.g. Keulartz 2009). Similar to the OSPC, N2000Ds also include conceptual frameworks aimed at defining targets and driving strategies and actions. The N2000Ds defined a broad legal framework where a list of general objectives and of legal mechanisms of wildlife management and conservation of specific targets (species and habitats) were developed. Despite this, the N2000Ds do not define any concrete methodology in terms of selecting actual management actions. In fact, following the principle of subsidiarity the European Union (EU) did not define a common binding approach to managing N2000 sites, and every Member State has the responsibility to develop appropriate conservation measures. Therefore, a comparison between a clear standardized methodology for species and site management (the OSPC) and a broad legal and technical framework aimed at conserving and managing species and habitats and designing sites (the N2000D framework) could facilitate a change in know-how and may induce the Member States to develop more appropriate, standardized, and suitable conservation measures. The ‘‘Rosetta Stone’’ approach to compare N2000Ds and the CMP-IUCN OSPC As the historic Rosetta Stone enabled scholars to decipher for the first time the meaning of the hieroglyphs through the comparison of different languages, so the Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 9 CMP Rosetta Stone Analysis is the result of an exercise that compares side-by- side the various project management systems used by the conservation organizations in the CMP. It enables practitioners to translate from one system to another and also to learn from one another so that they can refine and improve their systems over time. The Rosetta Stone Analysis is here used for the systematic comparison of the OSPC, a standardized methodological conceptual framework, and the N2000Ds, a broad framework aimed at conserving and managing targeted species, habitat types, and sites (IUCN-CMP 2007). The analysis allowed N2000D requirements to be systematically assessed and assigned to similar specific steps in the OSPC. As input to the Rosetta Stone Analysis, various EU provisions and documents were consulted (Table 1); the documents were chosen considering their importance for management purposes. The analysis was carried out using official references and excluding specific national or local literature. The Natura 2000 network is based upon a number of legal explanatory acts and other technical documents. An analysis of the main legal and technical references in order to identify aspects and procedures that can reliably match the OSPC structure was conducted. Along with these documents, the EU has elaborated, during the last years, many other specific documents on the interpretation of specific articles of the Directives. Although these documents are concerned with the application of the Directives, they are less focused on management issues and although they were taken into account by our analysis, they were not considered ‘‘crucial’’. Among all the documents analyzed, the conclusions of the Galway Seminar (EIC 2007), even though they are a binding document, represent the single most important document to be taken in account in order to identify an appropriate methodology for site management. Table 1. EU provisions and documents consulted, as input to the Rosetta Stone Analysis (see methods). 1 Directive 2009/147/ec of the European Parliament and of the council of 30 November 2009 – on the conservation of wild birds (previously known as Council Directive of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds 79/409/EEC) 2 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora 3 Interpretation manual of European Union Habitats EUR 27 – 2007 4 Managing Natura 2000 sites; The provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC – 2000 5 Guidance document on the strict protection of animal species of Community interest under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC – 2007 6 Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites. Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC – 2001 7 Assessment, monitoring and reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive: explanatory notes & guidelines – final draft – 2006 8 Guidelines for the establishment of the Natura 2000 network in the marine environment. Application of the Habitats and Birds Directives – 2007 9 ‘‘Natura 2000 management plans’’: conclusions of the Galway Seminar. SAC Site Management Workshop Galway, Ireland 1996 10 ‘‘Natura 2000 and People – a partnership’’ Conclusions of the Bath Conference Proceedings of the Conference, Bath, UK 1998 10 C. Teofili and C. Battisti We summarized the results into a three columns table (Table 2) presenting: (i) the list of the different steps as defined within the OSPC, (ii) the consistency of the step – specific methodology with the positions of the N2000-related documents, and (iii) the N2000-related documents taken into account by this study. The comparison between the framework of laws, provisions, and needs of the N2000Ds and the OSPC was summarized using five different steps. A detailed overview of differences and overlaps can be found in Table 2. Discussion Many steps and sub-steps of the OSPC can appropriately fulfill the EU needs, others do not match the N2000D framework (Table 2). Hereafter, we highlight differences between approaches and provide suggestions to implement both of them. Steps 1 and 2: Conceptualizing and planning actions and monitoring For Steps 1 and 2, all the EU requirements expressed in the N2000D framework are addressed by the OSPC. Nevertheless, the OSPC provide several additional recommendations such as: (a) Targets are not limited to habitats or species but can also include ecological processes as, for instance, natural disturbances (with effects on species and sites conservation) and human threats at different scales. Their regime (size area and shape, duration, frequency, severity and magnitude) should be studied, managed, maintained, or controlled in sites of conservation concern (Petraitis et al. 1989; Hobbs and Huenneke 1992; Salafsky et al. 2003). The OSPC advise the analysis of factors influencing threats on targets and encourage the description of cause–effect relationships (Wilson et al. 2005; Salafsky et al. 2008; Balmford et al. 2009; Battisti et al. 2008, 2009). In this sense, the OSPC suggest the application of the IUCN-CMP ‘‘Unified Classification of Direct Threats’’ (Salafsky et al. 2008) that could turn many single analyses in a comparable framework of management experiences. (b) Moreover, the OSPC encourage the landscape context analysis of a target, allowing habitat fragmentation to be considered as a threat at landscape/ regional scale and functional connectivity as a regulation factor (Saunders et al. 1991; Fahrig 2003; Crooks and Sanjayan 2006). (c) the OSPC consider the assessment of the biodiversity targets as a basis for setting management priorities. Likewise, EU Member States are obliged to monitor biodiversity periodically in order to define management actions. (d) the OSPC’s monitoring guidelines comprise also indicators for change in threats regime and regulating factors. With regards to Steps 1 and 2, the OSPC could be strengthened as follows: (a) When applying the OSPC, the description of a contextual geographical scope should include a wider landscape (corresponding to SACs and SPAs in the N2000Ds). (b) The description of the targets could be fully aligned to include listed habitat types and species, as highlighted in N2000D. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 11 Table 2. The systems of Natura 2000 Directives (N2000Ds) terms and concepts aligned on and compared with the CMP Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (OSPC). OSPC Steps and sub-steps Consistency between OSPC and EU provisions References within The N2000 Legal Framework 0. Priority setting The priorities have been fixed through the definition and the adoption of both the Directive 92/43/EEC – Art. 1 (a) N2000Ds (79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC) Initial scoping/reconnaissance Scoping D. 92/43/EEC – Art. 2.1 The sites can be set up only within the EU; the species and habitat types must occur, and Directive 79/409/EEC – Art. 1.1 viable conditions must be assessed, in at least one of the member states. Reconnaissance The reconnaissance phase was carried out at the earlier stage of setting up both the D. 92/43/EEC – Art. 3.1 Directives. The annexes of the Directives contain all the biological ‘‘targets’’ useful to define a coherent set of areas and management actions and provisions 1. Conceptualize 1a Define initial project team Defining Project Team 1b Define scope, vision, and targets The context of application of the Directives and, therefore nature conservation is D. 92/43/EEC Art. 3.2 definitely clear, considering the first articles of the treaties. The focus is on birds, other animals, plants, and habitat types that need actions of protection and/or management. Clear and common purpose The purpose of the Directives is clear considering the preambles and the first articles of D. 92/43/EEC Art. 3.1 the treaties. The focus is on the conservation and maintenance of the biodiversity all over Europe (a favorable conservation status) Geographic scope The scope within the member states is represented by the N2000 sites, they correspond to D. 92/43/EEC Art. 1 (j) (k) the geographical range within the natural range of such species; therefore the N2000 sites can be considered ‘‘core areas’’ for those species. The site is a defined geographic area with clear boundaries. Biodiversity targets The Biodiversity targets are the species and the habitat types listed in the N2000Ds D. 92/43/EEC Art. 1 (d) (h) standard Annexes and data forms, therefore the sites are designated according to targets’ range and presence. An important aspect is, therefore, the appropriate definition of the key ecological D. 92/43/EEC Art. 4.1 attributes (KEAs) upon which the goals and objectives are also going to be fixed. A particular attention must be assigned to the so called ‘‘priority’’ species or habitats that occur within the Natura 2000 sites. Member States are obliged to monitor the status of the biodiversity values (species and D. 92/43/EEC – Art. 2.1 habitat types). (continued) 12 C. Teofili and C. Battisti Table 2. (Continued). OSPC 1c Identify critical threats The European Union provided, along with the specification for the identification of the Commission Decision 97/266/CE N2000 sites (Decision 97/266/CE), also a list of the impacts and the activities concerning a format for influencing the conservation status. This list can be harmonized with the IUCN-CMP proposed Natura 2000 Sites: Unified Classification of Direct Threats. Appendix Natura 2000 management plans: Conclusions of the Galway Seminar Identification of critical threats Ranking of direct threats A sort of threat ranking is already provided in the data form of the N2000 sites. All the NATURA 2000 – Standard Data data forms contain qualitative and quantitative information about the main threats Form (97/266/CE) Information identified at site level. This information could be useful also in a more ‘‘formal’’ threat on impacts and activities in and ranking (see text). around the site 1d Complete situation analysis Analysis of indirect threats and opportunities Assessment of stakeholders The identification of actors and stakeholders is one of the binding aspect to be Natura 2000 management plans: considered during the process of definition of the action plan. Conclusions of the Galway Seminar Conclusion of Workshop of Bath ‘‘Natura 2000 and People – a partnership’’ Model of cause–effect relationships 2. Planning actions and monitoring 2a Develop action plan Goals The goal of the N2000 framework is to ensure a long-term persistence of the ecological D. 92/43/EEC Art. 2.2 features owing to which the site has been designated. More specifically, the goals at Natura 2000 management plans: site level should maintain, or restore, the ecological condition at favorable status. Conclusions of the Galway Seminar (continued) Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 13 Table 2. (Continued). OSPC Identification of strategies Ranking of strategies Results chains specifying assumptions for strategies Objectives for key factors The definition of a local site management implies a clear definition of the objectives to be Natura 2000 management plans: achieved. conclusions of the Galway Seminar: aims and strategies Main activities, rough timeline, Members States are asked to provide, at least rough, programmes about actions and D. 92/43/EEC Art. 17.1 responsibilities timeline and foreseen managing bodies for the sites and the national networks. Natura 2000 management plans: conclusions of the Galway Seminar 2b Develop formal monitoring In order to define priority of intervention and strategy, Member States are supposed to 92/43/EEC Art. 17.1 plan monitor periodically the status of the N2000 species and habitat. Audiences and information The implementation of the plan is clearly requested within the Galway Seminar Natura 2000 management plans: needs-defined conclusion. conclusions of the Galway Seminar: Indicators defined for goals, objectives, assumptions Definition of who measures, There are some suggestions that show a fair accordance with an Adaptive Management Natura 2000 management plans: what, where, how approach; N2000 managers are asked to set up a monitoring programme with short Conclusions of the Galway and long-term reviews. Seminar: D. 92/43/EEC Art. 17.1 2c Develop operational plan Assessment of human resources Assessment of financial and other resources Risk assessment and mitigation Clear responsibilities are assigned to the State Members and due the subsidiarity D. 92/43/EEC Art. 17.1 principle also to the N2000 sites local managers, particularly when other projects or programmes could impact the sites. Estimation of lifespan and exit strategy 3. Implement actions & monitoring 3a Develop short-term work Member States are obliged to provide conservation measures for the sites. D. 92/43/EEC Art. 6.1 plan and timeline (continued) 14 C. Teofili and C. Battisti Table 2. (Continued). OSPC Work plan (tasks, activities, Member States are responsible for the management of the N2000 network. D. 92/43/EEC Art. 6.2 responsibilities linked to 2a) Project timeline or calendar 3b Develop and refine project budget Project budget Potential funding sources The N2000 sites funding, at least at national level, should be given with the periodical Annexes OF DOCHAB 04-03/03- identifies reporting documents that have to be prepared by Member States. REV.3 Natura 2000 management plans: conclusions of the Galway Seminar: Funding sources developed and submitted Funding secured 3c Implement your plan Implementation of strategic plans, work plans Implementation of monitoring The implementation of the plan is clearly requested within the Galway Seminar Natura 2000 management plans: plans conclusion. conclusions of the Galway Seminar: 4. Analyze, use, adapt There are clear indications about the methodologies and the parameters (biological and Assessment, monitoring, and ecological) to be measured periodically. reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive: Explanatory Notes & Guidelines 4a. Prepare your data for The Galway Seminar conclusions ask for the correct gathering data. Natura 2000 management plans: analysis conclusions of the Galway Seminar: Review and Monitoring:. System for recording, storing Some responsibilities are assigned to the State Members and due the subsidiarity D. 92/43/EEC Art. 17.1. and processing and principle likely also to the N2000 sites local managers. backing-up project data (continued) Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 15 Table 2. (Continued). OSPC 4b. Analyze results Analysis of project results and The interventions have to be periodically checked because the efficiency of the N2000 D. 92/43/EEC Art. 17.1 assumptions network must be monitored. Assessment, monitoring, and reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive Analysis of operational and financial data Documentation of discussions and decisions 4c. Adapt your strategic plan Revised project documents (strategic plan, monitoring plan, work plan, budgets) 5. Capture and share learning 5a. Document what you learn The Habitat Directive provides some procedures about the periodical monitoring. It is D. 92/43/EEC Art. 17.1 also suggests that good practices and lessons learned are shared among managers and institutions. Documentation of key results and lessons 5b. Share what you learn Both the Directive and the documents of explanations clearly define the necessity to have Natura 2000 management plans: a sound information basis. conclusions of the Galway Seminar: Data Identification of key audiences The audience, meant as the general public, is well considered within the Directives. D.92/43/EEC Art. 17.1 Development of Issues related to the dissemination and communication of information are considered Conclusion of Workshop of Bath communications strategy into the Habitat Directive and the Bath Conference. Both the documents state the ‘‘Natura 2000 and People – a importance to inform people but it is not altogether clear whether dissemination of partnership’’: good practices must also be promoted. D. 92/43/EEC Art. 17.1 (continued) 16 C. Teofili and C. Battisti Table 2. (Continued). OSPC Reports and other communications to team members and key stakeholders Development and distribution of The Habitat Directive provides some suggestions about how to carry out a periodical D. 92/43/EEC Art. 17.1 communications products recurrent monitoring that could promote also a reiteration of management actions at site level. Use of other people’s communications products 5c Create a learning environment Regular feedback shared formally or informally Evaluations and/or audits Demonstrated commitment of leaders to learning Safe environment for experiments and questioning Commitment to share success and failures with practitioners around the world Note: The first column shows all the steps and sub-steps defined by the OSPC methodology; blank cells identify the absence of a link with the EU provisions. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 17 (c) The definition of a common framework of indicators to be used for monitoring purposes could be very useful, including the DPSIR approach, already used in the European context (EEA 2001): in a threats-targets arena this approach provides a selection of indicators of threat pressure, impact (on targets), state (of the targets), response (through a set of management actions) (EEA 2001). Step 3: Implementing actions and monitoring The availability of a method for the implementation of management actions and monitoring programs could represent the most important added value for the needs of the N2000Ds as all the EU requirements are addressed by the OSPC. The OSPC, however, contain some additional recommendations: (a) The definition of work-plans, as intended by the OSPC, could be extremely useful in transferring and sharing experiences. (b) The definition of monitoring activities, conducted according to the OSPC suggestions, could be harmonized with similar experiences made elsewhere. (c) Prioritizing strategies, as indicated in the OSPC, could allow the quantifica- tion of the resources used in order to achieve the expected results. With regards to Step 3, the OSPC could be strengthened on the following points: . It could be useful to define a common framework of consolidated indicators for the monitoring process; . A set of specific actions and tools could be useful in order to enable managers to apply effective instruments at different scales. The set of actions should be tailored taking into account the European legislation on site management along with the national legislation on nature conservation and management. In this context, a check-list of actions for management and conservation is already available (see Salafsky et al. 2008); . The definition of a common taxonomy of recommendations applicable to work plans and budgets could enhance sharing opportunities. The OSPC should be used even in a scaling-up process when Member States are asked to define and present periodical assessments about the conservation status of their N2000 network. Step 4: Analyzing, using, adapting The importance of analyzing effectiveness of conservation actions and plans to verify periodically the status of the European biodiversity is stressed by the EU. This is also the basis of Adaptive Management (hereafter AM; see Allan and Stankey 2009). The main innovation here is the ‘‘adapt’’ phase and hence the AM approach is actually an added value for the N2000Ds. The OSPC contain some additional recommendations: 18 C. Teofili and C. Battisti (a) The AM allows the measurement of successes, or even failures, really occurred; therefore it should become one of the compulsory aspects of the N2000 management. (b) The OSPC highlight the necessity to provide clear rules for gathering and analyzing data, in order to adapt actions and achieve goals. (c) The identification of the appropriate resources is crucial in order to analyze data. This however is not properly addressed at European level (e.g. within the LIFE financial instruments). With regards to Step 4, the OSPC could be strengthened as follows: (a) A set of general methodological rules about the techniques to be used for gathering homogeneous data (step 2) could be added; (b) The definition of a common set of indicators to be used for the analyzing and monitoring applications could be added; (c) The promotion of a new culture based on AM where the use of resources and the threat analysis (direct and indirect threats, driving forces, causal chains (Salafsky et al. 2003) are included. Step 5: Capturing and sharing learning The standards address consistently this issue because the documentation and the communications of results as well as the participation of citizens in the management processes are clearly defined among the N2000 requirements. Nevertheless, the OSPC contain some additional recommendations: (a) The OSPC recommend the importance of having a formal audit and evaluation on the actions done and the results achieved. It could be useful to set up a network of institutions or experts able to provide feedback in order to improve the management performance. (b) The OSPC advise on the necessity of setting up a common European learning environment. Multidisciplinary learning should comprise the following thematic domains and topics: biodiversity, direct and indirect human- induced threats and their regimes, economic driving forces, response measures (action plans, restoration projects, laws, and policies), causal chains among targets, processes, and measures. With regards to Step 5, the OSPC could be strengthened as follows: (a) A set of communications tools tailored on the EU necessity could be provided, particularly in accordance with the conclusion of the Bath Conference and Galway Seminar (EIC 2007); (b) By the provision of a communication tool through which to define the dissemination of results and, therefore, to assess the increase of public awareness on success on conservation measures. In support of step 5, the wide diffusion and sharing of information, outcomes, successes and even failures could improve and strengthen the capacity of Member Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 19 States and single managers to achieve sound results in the conservation and persistence of biodiversity across Europe. Conclusions The management of Natura 2000 sites could be approached by resorting to the methodological guidance provided by the OSPC, which would in any case have to be adapted to the local specificities of each site. The OSPC can be fitted into the management practices of each Member States, and any management approach could be improved under the normative light of the Standard’s idealized management template. With a Rosetta Stone Analysis we have compared two different conceptual approaches: the N2000Ds framework and the OPSC. This comparison has highlighted that: (a) successful strategies in conservation planning, integrative environmental management and restoration require clear conceptual frameworks; (b) given the many parallel steps between these conservation tools (CMP-IUCN Standards and EU Directives for biodiversity conservation), managers working in sites of conservation concern should compare the different approaches, highlighting strengths and weaknesses of each one; (c) during the application of the various steps, managers should emphasize the role of direct and indirect threats in threats-targets causal chains. Many tools are now available for naming, quantifying, mapping, and comparing human- induced threats in managed sites (see Salafsky et al. 2002, 2008; Battisti et al. 2008). CMP-IUCN Standards appear to be a useful tool with a clear conceptual framework that may improve the management effectiveness within the Natura 2000 network. In this sense, the OSPC can be used as a template for such management. A new approach to biodiversity conservation and to integrative environmental planning should consider direct and indirect threats as a priority focus of study and the conservation community should be aware of this new opportunity and add these new frameworks and paradigms to its toolkit (as in the case of the N2000Ds and other documents and laws). In this sense, recent literature provides a conceptual framework aimed at naming, classifying, and quantifying threats and their regime in time and space, defining also the causal chains between targets and threats (Salafsky et al. 2008; Balmford et al. 2009). We think that future strategies promoted by individual EU Member States on the basis of N2000Ds could be improved through the technical input of the OSPC. Finally, the adaptive nature of the OSPC guarantees the continuous updating of the methodology itself due to the input of actual experience, new research, and applications from field practitioners. Moreover we argue that, similarly to what was done for other issues (e.g. the art. 17 of the 92/43/CEE; EU 2006) the European Commission should promote explanatory guidelines about the application of the OSPC to the management of N2000 sites. 20 C. Teofili and C. Battisti Acknowledgements This study was promoted by the European Platform for Adaptive Management (EPAM), a partnership between Eurosite and Foundations of Success, aimed to promote the practice of Adaptive Management in Europe. The authors thank two anonymous reviewers and Alessandro Badalotti (WWF MedPO) for their critical suggestions; A. Badalotti and F. Cerfolli for the revision of the English text. References Allan C, Stankey GH. 2009. Adaptive environmental management. A practioner’s guide. Collinwood, Australia: CSIRO Publishing. AWF. 2003. Heartland conservation process (HCP): a framework for effective conservation in AWF’s African Heartlands. Washington (DC): Africa Wildlife Foundation. Balmford A, Carey P, Kapos V, Manica A, Rodrigues ASL, Scharlemann JPW, Green RE. 2009. Capturing the many dimensions of threats: comment on Salafsky et al. Conserv Biol. 23:482–487. Battisti C, Luiselli L, Pantano D, Teofili C. 2008. On threats analysis approach applied to a Mediterranean remnant wetland: is the assessment of human-induced threats related into different level of expertise of respondents? Biodiv Conserv. 16:1529–1542. Battisti C, Luiselli L, Teofili C. 2009. Quantifying threats in a Mediterranean wetland: are there any changes in their evaluation during a training course? Biodiv Conserv. 18:3053– Choi YD. 2007. Restoration ecology to the future: a call for new paradigm. Restor Ecol. 15:351–353. Crooks KR, Sanjayan M. 2006. Connectivity conservation. Conservation biology series 14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. EEA (European Environment Agency). 2001. DPSIR framework for state of environment reporting. (2002). Copenhagen, Denmark: UNEP/GRID-Arendal Maps and Graphics Library. EIC (Europ Info Centre). 2007. Contact Europe newsletter of the Galway Euro Info centre [Internet]. Available from: http://www.galwaychamber.com/uploadedfiles/June07.pdf Eltzinga CL, Salzer DW, Willoughby JW, Gibbs JP. 2001. Monitoring plant and animal populations. Massachusetts: Blackwell Science. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. Washington (DC): EPA/630/R-95/002F Environmental Protection Agency. EU (European Union). 2006. Assessment, monitoring and reporting under Article 17 of the habitats directive: explanatory notes & guidelines – final draft. Fahrig L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Ann Rev Ecol Syst. 34: 487–515. Hobbs RJ, Huenneke LF. 1992. Disturbance, diversity and invasions: implications for conservations. Conserv Biol. 6:324–337. IUCN – CMP. 2007. Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation, Version 2.0. Available from: http://www.conservationmeasures.org Keulartz J. 2009. European nature conservation and restoration policy – problems and perspec- tives. Restor Ecol. 17:446–450. Keulartz J, Leistra G, editors. 2008. Legitimacy in European nature conservation policy – case studies in multilevel governance. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. Petraitis PS, Latham RE, Niesenbaum RA. 1989. The maintenance of species diversity by disturbance. Quart Rev Biol. 64:393–418. Salafsky N, Margoluis R, Redford KH, Robinson JG. 2002. Improving the practice of conservation: a conceptual framework and research agenda for conservation science. Conserv Biol. 16:1469–1479. Salafsky N, Salzer D, Ervin J, Boucher T, Ostlie W. 2003. Conventions for defining, naming, measuring, combining, and mapping threats in conservation. An initial proposal for a standard system. Draft version, 1.12.2003. Salafsky N, Salzer N, Stattersfield AJ, Hilton-Taylor C, Neugarten R, Butchart SHM, Collen B, Cox N, Master LL, O’Connor S, et al. 2008. A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: unified classifications of threats and actions. Conserv Biol. 22:897–911. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 21 Sanderson EW, Redford KH, Vedder A, Coppolillo PB, Ward SE. 2002. A conceptual model for conservation planning based on landscape species requirements. Landsc Urban Plann. 58:41–56. Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ, Margules CR. 1991. Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conserv Biol. 5:18–32. Sutherland WJ. 2000. The conservation handbook. Massachusetts: Blackwell Science. TNC. 2000. The five-S framework for site conservation: a practitioner’s handbook for site conservation planning and measuring conservation success. Vol. 1, 2nd ed. Arlington, Virginia: The nature conservancy. TNC. 2003. The enhanced 5-s project management process: an overview of proposed standards for developing strategies, taking action, and measuring effectiveness and status at any scale. Arlington, Virginia: The Nature Conservancy. Wilson K, Pressey RL, Newton A, Burgnan M, Possingham H, Weston C. 2005. Measuring and incorporating vulnerability into conservation planning. Environ Manage. 35:527–543. Wurtzel R. 2008. European Union environmental policy and Natura 2000. In: Keulartz J, Leistra G, editors. Legitimacy in European nature conservation policy – case studies in multilevel governance. Heidelberg (Germany): Springer. p. 259–282. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences Taylor & Francis

May the Conservation Measures Partnership open standards framework improve the effectiveness of the Natura 2000 European Network? A comparative analysis

Download PDF
15 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/may-the-conservation-measures-partnership-open-standards-framework-yhS0ssogjy

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN
1943-8168
eISSN
1943-815X
DOI
10.1080/1943815X.2010.529150
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences Vol. 8, No. 1, March 2011, 7–21 May the Conservation Measures Partnership open standards framework improve the effectiveness of the Natura 2000 European Network? A comparative analysis a b Corrado Teofili * and Corrado Battisti a b WWF Italy, Biodiversity and Conservation, via Po, 25/c, Rome 00198, Italy; Department of Environmental Planning, Province of Rome, via Tiburtina, 691 Rome, Italy (Received 22 May 2010; final version received 30 September 2010) In this essay, we compare two frameworks widely known in conservation planning and integrative environmental management: the CMP Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (OSPC), a standardized management tool, and the Natura 2000 European framework (‘‘Birds’’ and ‘‘Habitats’’ Directives). The comparative analysis is conducted using a ‘‘Rosetta Stone’’ analysis approach. We provide a detailed overview of differences and overlaps, highlighting how many steps and sub-steps of the OSPC match the Natura 2000 European framework needs. The management of Natura 2000 sites could be approached by resorting to the methodological guidance provided by the OSPC, which should have to be slightly adapted to the local specificities of each sites. The OSPC could be encompassed efficiently into the EU N2000 guidance documents as well as into management practices of each Member State, and the management approach could be improved in the light of the Standard’s idealized management framework. Nevertheless, during the application of various steps, managers should emphasize the role of direct and indirect threats and the threats-targets causal chains at the local scale. This comparison highlighted how successful strategies in conservation planning, integrative environmental management and restoration require clear conceptual frameworks. The CMP Standards appear to be a useful tool with a clear conceptual framework that may improve the effectiveness of the management within the Natura 2000 network. In this sense, the OSPC can be used as a template for such management. Keywords: conservation planning; conceptual frameworks; IUCN; EU Directives; threat analysis; Open Standards Conservation Measures Partnership; Natura Introduction Conservation planning needs logical and conceptual frameworks to develop successful strategies (Sutherland 2000; Choi 2007). In the last decade, many efforts were made to select standard protocols, useful in the elaboration of conservation plans (e.g. EPA 1998; TNC 2000; Salafsky et al. 2002; Sanderson et al. 2002; AWF 2003; TNC 2003). Among these, the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (hereafter, OSPC) are meant to provide the steps and general guidance necessary for the successful *Corresponding author. Email: c.battisti@provincia.roma.it ISSN 1943-815X print/ISSN 1943-8168 online 2011 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/1943815X.2010.529150 http://www.informaworld.com 8 C. Teofili and C. Battisti implementation of conservation programs and projects (IUCN-CMP 2007). The Conservation Measures Partnership (hereafter, CMP) is a joint venture of NGOs whose mission is to improve the practice of biodiversity conservation by developing andpromoting commonstandards. The OSPC approach provides a five step framework comprising the components of the project management cycle (IUCN-CMP 2007). The basic structure of these generic stepsiswidelyusedinconservationtoachieve clearly defined goals.The fivesteps include: (1) the conceptualization of the features and the context of the project or site to be managed; (2) the planning of actions and monitoring; (3) the implementation of plans; (4) the evaluation of the effectiveness, in order to adapt the project to maximize its results; and (5) the capturing and sharing of outcomes and good practices with key external and internal audiences (IUCN-CMP 2006a). In Europe, Member States base their nature conservation strategies on the Natura 2000 Directives (hereafter, N2000Ds), a consolidated legal framework resting mainly upon the ‘‘Habitats’’ (92/43/EEC) and ‘‘Birds’’ (2009/147/EC) Directives (Wurtzel 2008). These Directives contain lists of biodiversity targets that should represent the focus of conservation strategies in terms of selection of specific sites (the Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) in the Habitats Directive and the Special Protection Areas (SPAs) in the Birds Directive), and development of targeted measures (e.g. legal measures, action plans, and restoration projects). Monitoring of biodiversity targets is part of the conservation process included from these Directives (Wurtzel 2008; see Eltzinga et al. 2001; Keulartz and Leistra 2008 for an example of the monitoring approach). Despite their innovative approach in the European legal conservation policies, N2000Ds have been widely criticized in terms of: (i) their targets selection (e.g. biased toward species from Northern more than Mediterranean Europe), (ii) the role of the targets (e.g. focal targets per se or indicators for a wider set of species, communities, and processes), (iii) the different national approaches to design and manage the SACs and SPAs; (iv) the strategies followed by local policies (centralist and top-down vs. stakeholders-oriented and participatory bottom-up) (e.g. Keulartz 2009). Similar to the OSPC, N2000Ds also include conceptual frameworks aimed at defining targets and driving strategies and actions. The N2000Ds defined a broad legal framework where a list of general objectives and of legal mechanisms of wildlife management and conservation of specific targets (species and habitats) were developed. Despite this, the N2000Ds do not define any concrete methodology in terms of selecting actual management actions. In fact, following the principle of subsidiarity the European Union (EU) did not define a common binding approach to managing N2000 sites, and every Member State has the responsibility to develop appropriate conservation measures. Therefore, a comparison between a clear standardized methodology for species and site management (the OSPC) and a broad legal and technical framework aimed at conserving and managing species and habitats and designing sites (the N2000D framework) could facilitate a change in know-how and may induce the Member States to develop more appropriate, standardized, and suitable conservation measures. The ‘‘Rosetta Stone’’ approach to compare N2000Ds and the CMP-IUCN OSPC As the historic Rosetta Stone enabled scholars to decipher for the first time the meaning of the hieroglyphs through the comparison of different languages, so the Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 9 CMP Rosetta Stone Analysis is the result of an exercise that compares side-by- side the various project management systems used by the conservation organizations in the CMP. It enables practitioners to translate from one system to another and also to learn from one another so that they can refine and improve their systems over time. The Rosetta Stone Analysis is here used for the systematic comparison of the OSPC, a standardized methodological conceptual framework, and the N2000Ds, a broad framework aimed at conserving and managing targeted species, habitat types, and sites (IUCN-CMP 2007). The analysis allowed N2000D requirements to be systematically assessed and assigned to similar specific steps in the OSPC. As input to the Rosetta Stone Analysis, various EU provisions and documents were consulted (Table 1); the documents were chosen considering their importance for management purposes. The analysis was carried out using official references and excluding specific national or local literature. The Natura 2000 network is based upon a number of legal explanatory acts and other technical documents. An analysis of the main legal and technical references in order to identify aspects and procedures that can reliably match the OSPC structure was conducted. Along with these documents, the EU has elaborated, during the last years, many other specific documents on the interpretation of specific articles of the Directives. Although these documents are concerned with the application of the Directives, they are less focused on management issues and although they were taken into account by our analysis, they were not considered ‘‘crucial’’. Among all the documents analyzed, the conclusions of the Galway Seminar (EIC 2007), even though they are a binding document, represent the single most important document to be taken in account in order to identify an appropriate methodology for site management. Table 1. EU provisions and documents consulted, as input to the Rosetta Stone Analysis (see methods). 1 Directive 2009/147/ec of the European Parliament and of the council of 30 November 2009 – on the conservation of wild birds (previously known as Council Directive of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds 79/409/EEC) 2 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora 3 Interpretation manual of European Union Habitats EUR 27 – 2007 4 Managing Natura 2000 sites; The provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC – 2000 5 Guidance document on the strict protection of animal species of Community interest under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC – 2007 6 Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites. Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC – 2001 7 Assessment, monitoring and reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive: explanatory notes & guidelines – final draft – 2006 8 Guidelines for the establishment of the Natura 2000 network in the marine environment. Application of the Habitats and Birds Directives – 2007 9 ‘‘Natura 2000 management plans’’: conclusions of the Galway Seminar. SAC Site Management Workshop Galway, Ireland 1996 10 ‘‘Natura 2000 and People – a partnership’’ Conclusions of the Bath Conference Proceedings of the Conference, Bath, UK 1998 10 C. Teofili and C. Battisti We summarized the results into a three columns table (Table 2) presenting: (i) the list of the different steps as defined within the OSPC, (ii) the consistency of the step – specific methodology with the positions of the N2000-related documents, and (iii) the N2000-related documents taken into account by this study. The comparison between the framework of laws, provisions, and needs of the N2000Ds and the OSPC was summarized using five different steps. A detailed overview of differences and overlaps can be found in Table 2. Discussion Many steps and sub-steps of the OSPC can appropriately fulfill the EU needs, others do not match the N2000D framework (Table 2). Hereafter, we highlight differences between approaches and provide suggestions to implement both of them. Steps 1 and 2: Conceptualizing and planning actions and monitoring For Steps 1 and 2, all the EU requirements expressed in the N2000D framework are addressed by the OSPC. Nevertheless, the OSPC provide several additional recommendations such as: (a) Targets are not limited to habitats or species but can also include ecological processes as, for instance, natural disturbances (with effects on species and sites conservation) and human threats at different scales. Their regime (size area and shape, duration, frequency, severity and magnitude) should be studied, managed, maintained, or controlled in sites of conservation concern (Petraitis et al. 1989; Hobbs and Huenneke 1992; Salafsky et al. 2003). The OSPC advise the analysis of factors influencing threats on targets and encourage the description of cause–effect relationships (Wilson et al. 2005; Salafsky et al. 2008; Balmford et al. 2009; Battisti et al. 2008, 2009). In this sense, the OSPC suggest the application of the IUCN-CMP ‘‘Unified Classification of Direct Threats’’ (Salafsky et al. 2008) that could turn many single analyses in a comparable framework of management experiences. (b) Moreover, the OSPC encourage the landscape context analysis of a target, allowing habitat fragmentation to be considered as a threat at landscape/ regional scale and functional connectivity as a regulation factor (Saunders et al. 1991; Fahrig 2003; Crooks and Sanjayan 2006). (c) the OSPC consider the assessment of the biodiversity targets as a basis for setting management priorities. Likewise, EU Member States are obliged to monitor biodiversity periodically in order to define management actions. (d) the OSPC’s monitoring guidelines comprise also indicators for change in threats regime and regulating factors. With regards to Steps 1 and 2, the OSPC could be strengthened as follows: (a) When applying the OSPC, the description of a contextual geographical scope should include a wider landscape (corresponding to SACs and SPAs in the N2000Ds). (b) The description of the targets could be fully aligned to include listed habitat types and species, as highlighted in N2000D. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 11 Table 2. The systems of Natura 2000 Directives (N2000Ds) terms and concepts aligned on and compared with the CMP Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (OSPC). OSPC Steps and sub-steps Consistency between OSPC and EU provisions References within The N2000 Legal Framework 0. Priority setting The priorities have been fixed through the definition and the adoption of both the Directive 92/43/EEC – Art. 1 (a) N2000Ds (79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC) Initial scoping/reconnaissance Scoping D. 92/43/EEC – Art. 2.1 The sites can be set up only within the EU; the species and habitat types must occur, and Directive 79/409/EEC – Art. 1.1 viable conditions must be assessed, in at least one of the member states. Reconnaissance The reconnaissance phase was carried out at the earlier stage of setting up both the D. 92/43/EEC – Art. 3.1 Directives. The annexes of the Directives contain all the biological ‘‘targets’’ useful to define a coherent set of areas and management actions and provisions 1. Conceptualize 1a Define initial project team Defining Project Team 1b Define scope, vision, and targets The context of application of the Directives and, therefore nature conservation is D. 92/43/EEC Art. 3.2 definitely clear, considering the first articles of the treaties. The focus is on birds, other animals, plants, and habitat types that need actions of protection and/or management. Clear and common purpose The purpose of the Directives is clear considering the preambles and the first articles of D. 92/43/EEC Art. 3.1 the treaties. The focus is on the conservation and maintenance of the biodiversity all over Europe (a favorable conservation status) Geographic scope The scope within the member states is represented by the N2000 sites, they correspond to D. 92/43/EEC Art. 1 (j) (k) the geographical range within the natural range of such species; therefore the N2000 sites can be considered ‘‘core areas’’ for those species. The site is a defined geographic area with clear boundaries. Biodiversity targets The Biodiversity targets are the species and the habitat types listed in the N2000Ds D. 92/43/EEC Art. 1 (d) (h) standard Annexes and data forms, therefore the sites are designated according to targets’ range and presence. An important aspect is, therefore, the appropriate definition of the key ecological D. 92/43/EEC Art. 4.1 attributes (KEAs) upon which the goals and objectives are also going to be fixed. A particular attention must be assigned to the so called ‘‘priority’’ species or habitats that occur within the Natura 2000 sites. Member States are obliged to monitor the status of the biodiversity values (species and D. 92/43/EEC – Art. 2.1 habitat types). (continued) 12 C. Teofili and C. Battisti Table 2. (Continued). OSPC 1c Identify critical threats The European Union provided, along with the specification for the identification of the Commission Decision 97/266/CE N2000 sites (Decision 97/266/CE), also a list of the impacts and the activities concerning a format for influencing the conservation status. This list can be harmonized with the IUCN-CMP proposed Natura 2000 Sites: Unified Classification of Direct Threats. Appendix Natura 2000 management plans: Conclusions of the Galway Seminar Identification of critical threats Ranking of direct threats A sort of threat ranking is already provided in the data form of the N2000 sites. All the NATURA 2000 – Standard Data data forms contain qualitative and quantitative information about the main threats Form (97/266/CE) Information identified at site level. This information could be useful also in a more ‘‘formal’’ threat on impacts and activities in and ranking (see text). around the site 1d Complete situation analysis Analysis of indirect threats and opportunities Assessment of stakeholders The identification of actors and stakeholders is one of the binding aspect to be Natura 2000 management plans: considered during the process of definition of the action plan. Conclusions of the Galway Seminar Conclusion of Workshop of Bath ‘‘Natura 2000 and People – a partnership’’ Model of cause–effect relationships 2. Planning actions and monitoring 2a Develop action plan Goals The goal of the N2000 framework is to ensure a long-term persistence of the ecological D. 92/43/EEC Art. 2.2 features owing to which the site has been designated. More specifically, the goals at Natura 2000 management plans: site level should maintain, or restore, the ecological condition at favorable status. Conclusions of the Galway Seminar (continued) Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 13 Table 2. (Continued). OSPC Identification of strategies Ranking of strategies Results chains specifying assumptions for strategies Objectives for key factors The definition of a local site management implies a clear definition of the objectives to be Natura 2000 management plans: achieved. conclusions of the Galway Seminar: aims and strategies Main activities, rough timeline, Members States are asked to provide, at least rough, programmes about actions and D. 92/43/EEC Art. 17.1 responsibilities timeline and foreseen managing bodies for the sites and the national networks. Natura 2000 management plans: conclusions of the Galway Seminar 2b Develop formal monitoring In order to define priority of intervention and strategy, Member States are supposed to 92/43/EEC Art. 17.1 plan monitor periodically the status of the N2000 species and habitat. Audiences and information The implementation of the plan is clearly requested within the Galway Seminar Natura 2000 management plans: needs-defined conclusion. conclusions of the Galway Seminar: Indicators defined for goals, objectives, assumptions Definition of who measures, There are some suggestions that show a fair accordance with an Adaptive Management Natura 2000 management plans: what, where, how approach; N2000 managers are asked to set up a monitoring programme with short Conclusions of the Galway and long-term reviews. Seminar: D. 92/43/EEC Art. 17.1 2c Develop operational plan Assessment of human resources Assessment of financial and other resources Risk assessment and mitigation Clear responsibilities are assigned to the State Members and due the subsidiarity D. 92/43/EEC Art. 17.1 principle also to the N2000 sites local managers, particularly when other projects or programmes could impact the sites. Estimation of lifespan and exit strategy 3. Implement actions & monitoring 3a Develop short-term work Member States are obliged to provide conservation measures for the sites. D. 92/43/EEC Art. 6.1 plan and timeline (continued) 14 C. Teofili and C. Battisti Table 2. (Continued). OSPC Work plan (tasks, activities, Member States are responsible for the management of the N2000 network. D. 92/43/EEC Art. 6.2 responsibilities linked to 2a) Project timeline or calendar 3b Develop and refine project budget Project budget Potential funding sources The N2000 sites funding, at least at national level, should be given with the periodical Annexes OF DOCHAB 04-03/03- identifies reporting documents that have to be prepared by Member States. REV.3 Natura 2000 management plans: conclusions of the Galway Seminar: Funding sources developed and submitted Funding secured 3c Implement your plan Implementation of strategic plans, work plans Implementation of monitoring The implementation of the plan is clearly requested within the Galway Seminar Natura 2000 management plans: plans conclusion. conclusions of the Galway Seminar: 4. Analyze, use, adapt There are clear indications about the methodologies and the parameters (biological and Assessment, monitoring, and ecological) to be measured periodically. reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive: Explanatory Notes & Guidelines 4a. Prepare your data for The Galway Seminar conclusions ask for the correct gathering data. Natura 2000 management plans: analysis conclusions of the Galway Seminar: Review and Monitoring:. System for recording, storing Some responsibilities are assigned to the State Members and due the subsidiarity D. 92/43/EEC Art. 17.1. and processing and principle likely also to the N2000 sites local managers. backing-up project data (continued) Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 15 Table 2. (Continued). OSPC 4b. Analyze results Analysis of project results and The interventions have to be periodically checked because the efficiency of the N2000 D. 92/43/EEC Art. 17.1 assumptions network must be monitored. Assessment, monitoring, and reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive Analysis of operational and financial data Documentation of discussions and decisions 4c. Adapt your strategic plan Revised project documents (strategic plan, monitoring plan, work plan, budgets) 5. Capture and share learning 5a. Document what you learn The Habitat Directive provides some procedures about the periodical monitoring. It is D. 92/43/EEC Art. 17.1 also suggests that good practices and lessons learned are shared among managers and institutions. Documentation of key results and lessons 5b. Share what you learn Both the Directive and the documents of explanations clearly define the necessity to have Natura 2000 management plans: a sound information basis. conclusions of the Galway Seminar: Data Identification of key audiences The audience, meant as the general public, is well considered within the Directives. D.92/43/EEC Art. 17.1 Development of Issues related to the dissemination and communication of information are considered Conclusion of Workshop of Bath communications strategy into the Habitat Directive and the Bath Conference. Both the documents state the ‘‘Natura 2000 and People – a importance to inform people but it is not altogether clear whether dissemination of partnership’’: good practices must also be promoted. D. 92/43/EEC Art. 17.1 (continued) 16 C. Teofili and C. Battisti Table 2. (Continued). OSPC Reports and other communications to team members and key stakeholders Development and distribution of The Habitat Directive provides some suggestions about how to carry out a periodical D. 92/43/EEC Art. 17.1 communications products recurrent monitoring that could promote also a reiteration of management actions at site level. Use of other people’s communications products 5c Create a learning environment Regular feedback shared formally or informally Evaluations and/or audits Demonstrated commitment of leaders to learning Safe environment for experiments and questioning Commitment to share success and failures with practitioners around the world Note: The first column shows all the steps and sub-steps defined by the OSPC methodology; blank cells identify the absence of a link with the EU provisions. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 17 (c) The definition of a common framework of indicators to be used for monitoring purposes could be very useful, including the DPSIR approach, already used in the European context (EEA 2001): in a threats-targets arena this approach provides a selection of indicators of threat pressure, impact (on targets), state (of the targets), response (through a set of management actions) (EEA 2001). Step 3: Implementing actions and monitoring The availability of a method for the implementation of management actions and monitoring programs could represent the most important added value for the needs of the N2000Ds as all the EU requirements are addressed by the OSPC. The OSPC, however, contain some additional recommendations: (a) The definition of work-plans, as intended by the OSPC, could be extremely useful in transferring and sharing experiences. (b) The definition of monitoring activities, conducted according to the OSPC suggestions, could be harmonized with similar experiences made elsewhere. (c) Prioritizing strategies, as indicated in the OSPC, could allow the quantifica- tion of the resources used in order to achieve the expected results. With regards to Step 3, the OSPC could be strengthened on the following points: . It could be useful to define a common framework of consolidated indicators for the monitoring process; . A set of specific actions and tools could be useful in order to enable managers to apply effective instruments at different scales. The set of actions should be tailored taking into account the European legislation on site management along with the national legislation on nature conservation and management. In this context, a check-list of actions for management and conservation is already available (see Salafsky et al. 2008); . The definition of a common taxonomy of recommendations applicable to work plans and budgets could enhance sharing opportunities. The OSPC should be used even in a scaling-up process when Member States are asked to define and present periodical assessments about the conservation status of their N2000 network. Step 4: Analyzing, using, adapting The importance of analyzing effectiveness of conservation actions and plans to verify periodically the status of the European biodiversity is stressed by the EU. This is also the basis of Adaptive Management (hereafter AM; see Allan and Stankey 2009). The main innovation here is the ‘‘adapt’’ phase and hence the AM approach is actually an added value for the N2000Ds. The OSPC contain some additional recommendations: 18 C. Teofili and C. Battisti (a) The AM allows the measurement of successes, or even failures, really occurred; therefore it should become one of the compulsory aspects of the N2000 management. (b) The OSPC highlight the necessity to provide clear rules for gathering and analyzing data, in order to adapt actions and achieve goals. (c) The identification of the appropriate resources is crucial in order to analyze data. This however is not properly addressed at European level (e.g. within the LIFE financial instruments). With regards to Step 4, the OSPC could be strengthened as follows: (a) A set of general methodological rules about the techniques to be used for gathering homogeneous data (step 2) could be added; (b) The definition of a common set of indicators to be used for the analyzing and monitoring applications could be added; (c) The promotion of a new culture based on AM where the use of resources and the threat analysis (direct and indirect threats, driving forces, causal chains (Salafsky et al. 2003) are included. Step 5: Capturing and sharing learning The standards address consistently this issue because the documentation and the communications of results as well as the participation of citizens in the management processes are clearly defined among the N2000 requirements. Nevertheless, the OSPC contain some additional recommendations: (a) The OSPC recommend the importance of having a formal audit and evaluation on the actions done and the results achieved. It could be useful to set up a network of institutions or experts able to provide feedback in order to improve the management performance. (b) The OSPC advise on the necessity of setting up a common European learning environment. Multidisciplinary learning should comprise the following thematic domains and topics: biodiversity, direct and indirect human- induced threats and their regimes, economic driving forces, response measures (action plans, restoration projects, laws, and policies), causal chains among targets, processes, and measures. With regards to Step 5, the OSPC could be strengthened as follows: (a) A set of communications tools tailored on the EU necessity could be provided, particularly in accordance with the conclusion of the Bath Conference and Galway Seminar (EIC 2007); (b) By the provision of a communication tool through which to define the dissemination of results and, therefore, to assess the increase of public awareness on success on conservation measures. In support of step 5, the wide diffusion and sharing of information, outcomes, successes and even failures could improve and strengthen the capacity of Member Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 19 States and single managers to achieve sound results in the conservation and persistence of biodiversity across Europe. Conclusions The management of Natura 2000 sites could be approached by resorting to the methodological guidance provided by the OSPC, which would in any case have to be adapted to the local specificities of each site. The OSPC can be fitted into the management practices of each Member States, and any management approach could be improved under the normative light of the Standard’s idealized management template. With a Rosetta Stone Analysis we have compared two different conceptual approaches: the N2000Ds framework and the OPSC. This comparison has highlighted that: (a) successful strategies in conservation planning, integrative environmental management and restoration require clear conceptual frameworks; (b) given the many parallel steps between these conservation tools (CMP-IUCN Standards and EU Directives for biodiversity conservation), managers working in sites of conservation concern should compare the different approaches, highlighting strengths and weaknesses of each one; (c) during the application of the various steps, managers should emphasize the role of direct and indirect threats in threats-targets causal chains. Many tools are now available for naming, quantifying, mapping, and comparing human- induced threats in managed sites (see Salafsky et al. 2002, 2008; Battisti et al. 2008). CMP-IUCN Standards appear to be a useful tool with a clear conceptual framework that may improve the management effectiveness within the Natura 2000 network. In this sense, the OSPC can be used as a template for such management. A new approach to biodiversity conservation and to integrative environmental planning should consider direct and indirect threats as a priority focus of study and the conservation community should be aware of this new opportunity and add these new frameworks and paradigms to its toolkit (as in the case of the N2000Ds and other documents and laws). In this sense, recent literature provides a conceptual framework aimed at naming, classifying, and quantifying threats and their regime in time and space, defining also the causal chains between targets and threats (Salafsky et al. 2008; Balmford et al. 2009). We think that future strategies promoted by individual EU Member States on the basis of N2000Ds could be improved through the technical input of the OSPC. Finally, the adaptive nature of the OSPC guarantees the continuous updating of the methodology itself due to the input of actual experience, new research, and applications from field practitioners. Moreover we argue that, similarly to what was done for other issues (e.g. the art. 17 of the 92/43/CEE; EU 2006) the European Commission should promote explanatory guidelines about the application of the OSPC to the management of N2000 sites. 20 C. Teofili and C. Battisti Acknowledgements This study was promoted by the European Platform for Adaptive Management (EPAM), a partnership between Eurosite and Foundations of Success, aimed to promote the practice of Adaptive Management in Europe. The authors thank two anonymous reviewers and Alessandro Badalotti (WWF MedPO) for their critical suggestions; A. Badalotti and F. Cerfolli for the revision of the English text. References Allan C, Stankey GH. 2009. Adaptive environmental management. A practioner’s guide. Collinwood, Australia: CSIRO Publishing. AWF. 2003. Heartland conservation process (HCP): a framework for effective conservation in AWF’s African Heartlands. Washington (DC): Africa Wildlife Foundation. Balmford A, Carey P, Kapos V, Manica A, Rodrigues ASL, Scharlemann JPW, Green RE. 2009. Capturing the many dimensions of threats: comment on Salafsky et al. Conserv Biol. 23:482–487. Battisti C, Luiselli L, Pantano D, Teofili C. 2008. On threats analysis approach applied to a Mediterranean remnant wetland: is the assessment of human-induced threats related into different level of expertise of respondents? Biodiv Conserv. 16:1529–1542. Battisti C, Luiselli L, Teofili C. 2009. Quantifying threats in a Mediterranean wetland: are there any changes in their evaluation during a training course? Biodiv Conserv. 18:3053– Choi YD. 2007. Restoration ecology to the future: a call for new paradigm. Restor Ecol. 15:351–353. Crooks KR, Sanjayan M. 2006. Connectivity conservation. Conservation biology series 14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. EEA (European Environment Agency). 2001. DPSIR framework for state of environment reporting. (2002). Copenhagen, Denmark: UNEP/GRID-Arendal Maps and Graphics Library. EIC (Europ Info Centre). 2007. Contact Europe newsletter of the Galway Euro Info centre [Internet]. Available from: http://www.galwaychamber.com/uploadedfiles/June07.pdf Eltzinga CL, Salzer DW, Willoughby JW, Gibbs JP. 2001. Monitoring plant and animal populations. Massachusetts: Blackwell Science. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. Washington (DC): EPA/630/R-95/002F Environmental Protection Agency. EU (European Union). 2006. Assessment, monitoring and reporting under Article 17 of the habitats directive: explanatory notes & guidelines – final draft. Fahrig L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Ann Rev Ecol Syst. 34: 487–515. Hobbs RJ, Huenneke LF. 1992. Disturbance, diversity and invasions: implications for conservations. Conserv Biol. 6:324–337. IUCN – CMP. 2007. Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation, Version 2.0. Available from: http://www.conservationmeasures.org Keulartz J. 2009. European nature conservation and restoration policy – problems and perspec- tives. Restor Ecol. 17:446–450. Keulartz J, Leistra G, editors. 2008. Legitimacy in European nature conservation policy – case studies in multilevel governance. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. Petraitis PS, Latham RE, Niesenbaum RA. 1989. The maintenance of species diversity by disturbance. Quart Rev Biol. 64:393–418. Salafsky N, Margoluis R, Redford KH, Robinson JG. 2002. Improving the practice of conservation: a conceptual framework and research agenda for conservation science. Conserv Biol. 16:1469–1479. Salafsky N, Salzer D, Ervin J, Boucher T, Ostlie W. 2003. Conventions for defining, naming, measuring, combining, and mapping threats in conservation. An initial proposal for a standard system. Draft version, 1.12.2003. Salafsky N, Salzer N, Stattersfield AJ, Hilton-Taylor C, Neugarten R, Butchart SHM, Collen B, Cox N, Master LL, O’Connor S, et al. 2008. A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: unified classifications of threats and actions. Conserv Biol. 22:897–911. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 21 Sanderson EW, Redford KH, Vedder A, Coppolillo PB, Ward SE. 2002. A conceptual model for conservation planning based on landscape species requirements. Landsc Urban Plann. 58:41–56. Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ, Margules CR. 1991. Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conserv Biol. 5:18–32. Sutherland WJ. 2000. The conservation handbook. Massachusetts: Blackwell Science. TNC. 2000. The five-S framework for site conservation: a practitioner’s handbook for site conservation planning and measuring conservation success. Vol. 1, 2nd ed. Arlington, Virginia: The nature conservancy. TNC. 2003. The enhanced 5-s project management process: an overview of proposed standards for developing strategies, taking action, and measuring effectiveness and status at any scale. Arlington, Virginia: The Nature Conservancy. Wilson K, Pressey RL, Newton A, Burgnan M, Possingham H, Weston C. 2005. Measuring and incorporating vulnerability into conservation planning. Environ Manage. 35:527–543. Wurtzel R. 2008. European Union environmental policy and Natura 2000. In: Keulartz J, Leistra G, editors. Legitimacy in European nature conservation policy – case studies in multilevel governance. Heidelberg (Germany): Springer. p. 259–282.

Journal

Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences – Taylor & Francis

Published: Mar 1, 2011

Keywords: conservation planning; conceptual frameworks; IUCN; EU Directives; threat analysis; Open Standards Conservation Measures Partnership; Natura 2000

References