Connectivity between protected areas as an adaptation strategy

Connectivity between protected areas as an adaptation strategy for biodiversity conservation An Cliquet - Ghent University Kris Decleer – Research Institute for Nature and Forest IUCN AEL Conference, Ghent, 14 -16 September 2010

Overview Impact of climate change on biodiversity ¢ Connectivity in international, EU & national law ¢ Solutions ¢

Impact of climate change on biodiversity Species will migrate in search of their optimal ‘climate space’ → shifting range of habitats/species ¢ Habitat fragmentation multiplies the impact of climate change and makes responses to climate change more difficult ¢ Current system of protection is insufficient ¢

Adaptation to climate change ¢ There is a need to: Strengthen the adaptability of ecosystems to (natural) changes and facilitate species migrating to other areas l Adapting the ‘landscape approach’ l

Adaptation to climate change ¢ More specifically through: Making core protected areas more robust l Taking restoration measures l Taking measures outside protected areas (buffering…) l Taking connectivity measures to enable species migration l

Connectivity ¢ Definition IUCN: l The maintenance and restoration of ecosystem integrity requires landscape-scale conservation. This can be achieved through systems of core protected areas that are functionally linked and buffered in ways that maintain ecosystem processes and allow species to survive and move, thus ensuring that populations are viable and that ecosystems and people are able to adapt to land transformation and change.

Connectivity ¢ Different types of corridors: l l ¢ Corridors for specific species, depending on dispersal capacity of species (from local to global) Corridors for several species (containing different habitat types) E. g. flyways for birds, linear corridor, stepping stones, ecoducts…

Measures for connectivity Robust connections (= large corridor areas) ¢ Measures in wider landscape (e. g. blue and green ‘veins’, small landscape elements, …) ¢ Translocation of species ¢

Difficulties on connectivity ¢ ¢ ¢ Scientific uncertainties (which measures to take) Connectivity measures are not necessarily beneficial for all species/habitats No guarantee on successfull migration and adaptation of species Impact of connectivity on invasive species Impact of migrating or translocated species on endemic species

Connectivity in law Focus in law is mostly on core protected areas ¢ Attention for ecological networks, but often without specific measures for connecting core areas ¢ Lack of strong legal mechanisms for connectivity ¢

Connectivity in international law Protection of corridors and flyways (e. g. Ramsar Convention…) ¢ Convention on Biodiversity ¢ Convention: obligation for ‘system of protected areas’ l COP decisions on connectivity l • Programme of work on protected areas (COP 7, 2004) Technical guidance reports l Lack of specific legal obligations l

Connectivity in EU law ¢ Natura 2000 network ¢ Continous obligation to designate sites as Natura 2000 site (important for newly arriving species) ¢ Art. 3 & 10, Habitats Directive: provisions on connectivity measures & restoration

Connectivity in EU law Provisions of art. 3 & 10: rather weak ¢ But: in light of obligation of reaching favourable conservation status, connectivity measures can be mandatory! ¢ Obligation on favourable conservation status is not limited to Natura 2000 sites ¢

Connectivity in EU policy Commission Communication & Biodiversity Action Plan (2006) ¢ Commission Communication (2010) & Environment Council conclusions (2010) ¢ White paper on adaptation to climate change (2009) ¢

Connectivity in EU policy ¢ Initiatives on ‘Green infrastructure’: Connecting habitats for species migration l Supporting ecosystem functions l Urban and rural green infrastructure l ¢ Studies on: Need for integration in other policy sectors l Guidance on ecological connectivity l

Connectivity in national law ¢ Flanders: l Flemish Ecological Network (Nature Decree): interlinking corridor areas: • No surface area target; no clear ecological objectives; lack of legal binding measures for stakeholders • Result: some measures for small landscape elements, but lack of coherence; no robust corridors; unsufficient bufferzones along waterways, …

Solutions: what needs to be done? ¢ ¢ There is a need for: l Measures in nature conservation legislation & in other legislation (agriculture, spatial planning, water management…). l Ecological objectives & coherent measures l Restoration Scale of measures will depend on species/habitats (international, European, national, local)

Solutions: how can it be done? ¢ ¢ Designate robust corridor areas as protected areas Protect green infrastructure (stepping stones, linear elements), by using legal techniques such as direct biotope protection, imposing obligations on owners/users… Strengthen legal provisions (e. g. work out Commission guidelines on implementation of art. 10 Habitats Directive) Provide financial incentives (taking into account goods & services provided by connectivity areas)