Natura 2000 and climate change adaptation

I am especially pleased that the minefields related to Natura 2000 have been made clear from the very beginning.

The objectives of the Natura 2000 areas are exclusively related to the maintenance of the presence and the current status of the selected targets. Many of the sites focus on single occurrences of certain species without protecting viable populations. E.g., in Germany the rather large state of Bavaria has achieved the establishment of 674 SACs, more than in any other state. However, 69.6% of the sites are smaller than 1,000 ha, and 21.4% even smaller than 50 ha; only 1.8% are larger than 10,000 ha (according to data by BfN 2005b). The placement of the sites within this extremely fragmented protected area system has not been planned in function of connectivity or other aspects related to functionality. In the light of projected climate changes and short-term loss of stability for many species (e.g., Bakkenes et al. 2003) it is highly improbable that Natura 2000 alone can accomplish its objectives.

The minefields are not exclusively of a legal and political nature. As far as I understand, many conservationists in Germany and Europe are not amused at all that after a decade of hard battles and struggling for Natura 2000 (which definitely has absorbed a major portion of conservation resources and attention spent by governmental and NGO actors)we come and tell them that the approach is wrong (or let's say too narrow). Some conservationists even feel that it might be dangerous when politicians get informed that this expensive and bothersome Natura 2000 is far from being based on recent conservation science.

Until now, among most conservationists (in Germany) adaptation to climate change is not a relevant topic. Conservation is much too segregative focusing on areas where interesting and beautiful flowers and bugs are. Although the ecosystem approach is an official CBD issue it does not touch the hearts of the traditional conservationists. As we are documenting for a paper, most protected area managers have not heard of the ecosystem approach or do not know what it means. Thus, there are scientific minefields as well ...

Of course, the key question is Terry's "But how different will they become and at what point do we stop managing them for what they are now and manage them for what they will become in 50 to 100 years time? " Definitely, there should be some rapid assessments done using habitat suitability models and climate change data in order to show how the warming alone will affect the Natura 2000 targets (without taking into account systemic/synecological effects of climate change that cannot be modelled but that definitely will worsen the impact). This is a first step that should be used for a careful communication to conservationists and politicians. The challenge is that we need to abandon the site-based species and representation centered conservation approaches as soon as possible. We should not spend large amounts of money for the Natura 2000 target monitoring and management alone but instead use much of it for improving the habitat quality of the matrix between protected areas and establishing a best possible network of corridors. The set of Natura 2000 areas is a patchwork, not a network. And this must be changed. In central Europe the fragmentation by roads and settlements and agricultural areas is an enormous conservation problem - even in a static world. With the expected dynamics triggered by climate change the consequences might be fatal.

A contribution by:
Prof. Dr. Pierre L. Ibisch
Professor for Nature Conservation
Faculty of Forestry - University of Applied Sciences Eberswalde
Alfred-Moeller-Str. 1, 16225 Eberswalde / Germany