Assessment and Spatial Planning for Peatland Conservation and Restoration: Europe's Trans-Border Neman River Basin As a Case S
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Article Assessment and Spatial Planning for Peatland Conservation and Restoration: Europe’s Trans-Border Neman River Basin as a Case Study Michael Manton 1,*, Evaldas Makrickas 1, Piotr Banaszuk 2, Aleksander Kołos 2, Andrzej Kamocki 2, Mateusz Grygoruk 3, Marta Stachowicz 3, Leonas Jarašius 4, Nerijus Zableckis 5, Jūratė Sendžikaitė 6, Jan Peters 7, Maxim Napreenko 8, Wendelin Wichtmann 9 and Per Angelstam 10,11 1 Institute of Forest Biology and Silviculture, Faculty of Forest Science and Ecology, Vytautas Magnus University, Studentu 13, LT-53362 Akademija, 44248 Kaunas, Lithuania; [email protected] 2 Faculty of Civil Engineering and Environmental Sciences, Bialystok University of Technology, Wiejska 45 E, 15-351 Bialystok, Poland; [email protected] (P.B.); [email protected] (A.K.); [email protected] (A.K.) 3 Institute of Environmental Engineering, Warsaw University of Life Sciences-SGGW, Nowoursynowska 166, 02-999 Warsaw, Poland; [email protected] (M.G.); [email protected] (M.S.) 4 Foundation for Peatlands Restoration and Conservation, Zirmunu 58-59, LT-09100 Vilnius, Lithuania; [email protected] 5 Lithuanian Fund for Nature, Algirdo 22-3, LT-03218 Vilnius, Lithuania; [email protected] Citation: Manton, M.; Makrickas, E.; 6 Institute of Botany, Nature Research Centre, Žaliųjų Ežerų 49, LT-12200 Vilnius, Lithuania; Banaszuk, P.; Kołos, A.; Kamocki, A.; [email protected] 7 Grygoruk, M.; Stachowicz, M.; Michael Succow Foundation, Partner in the Greifswald Mire Centre, Ellernholzstrasse 1/3, 17489 Greifswald, Germany; [email protected] Jarašius, L.; Zableckis, N.; 8 Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences, 36, Nahimovskiy Prospekt, Sendžikaitė, J.; et al. Assessment and 117997 Moscow, Russia; [email protected] Spatial Planning for Peatland 9 Experimental Plant Ecology, Partner in the Greifswald Mire Centre, Institute for Botany and Landscape Conservation and Restoration: Ecology, Greifswald University, 17489 Greifswald, Germany; [email protected] Europe’s Trans-Border Neman River 10 School for Forest Management, Faculty of Forest Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Basin as a Case Study. Land 2021, 10, SE-739 21 Skinnskatteberg, Sweden; [email protected] 174. https://doi.org/10.3390/land 11 Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, Faculty of Applied Ecology, Agricultural Sciences and 10020174 Biotechnology, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Campus Evenstad, N-2480 Koppang, Norway * Correspondence: [email protected] Academic Editors: Tatiana Minayeva and Elena Lapshina Abstract: Peatlands are the “kidneys” of river basins. However, intensification of agriculture and forestry Received: 7 December 2020 Accepted: 3 February 2021 in Europe has resulted in the degradation of peatlands and their biodiversity (i.e., species, habitats and Published: 8 February 2021 processes in ecosystems), thus impairing water retention, nutrient filtration, and carbon capture. Resto- ration of peatlands requires assessment of patterns and processes, and spatial planning. To support stra- Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu- tegic planning of protection, management, and restoration of peatlands, we assessed the conservation tral with regard to jurisdictional status of three peatland types within the trans-border Neman River basin. First, we compiled a spatial claims in published maps and insti- peatland database for the two EU and two non-EU countries involved. Second, we performed quantita- tutional affiliations. tive and qualitative gap analyses of fens, transitional mires, and raised bogs at national and sub-basin levels. Third, we identified priority areas for local peatland restoration using a local hotspot analysis. Nationally, the gap analysis showed that the protection of peatlands meets the Convention of Biological Diversity’s quantitative target of 17%. However, qualitative targets like representation and peatland Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Li- censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. qualities were not met in some regional sub-basins. This stresses that restoration of peatlands, especially This article is an open access article fens, is required. This study provides an assessment methodology to support sub-basin-level spatial con- distributed under the terms and con- servation planning that considers both quantitative and qualitative peatland properties. Finally, we high- ditions of the Creative Commons At- light the need for developing and validating evidence-based performance targets for peatland patterns tribution (CC BY) license (http://crea- and processes and call for peatland restoration guided by social-ecological research and inter-sectoral tivecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). collaborative governance. Land 2021, 10, 174. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10020174 www.mdpi.com/journal/land Land 2021, 10, 174 2 of 27 Keywords: Baltic Sea region; bog; environmental history; fen; gap analysis; governance; pattern and process; quantitative and qualitative Aichi targets; re-wetting; wetlands 1. Introduction Mires are formed in the process of anoxic decomposition of accumulated organic ma- terial in saturated conditions, commonly termed peatlands. Over thousands of years, hunter-gatherers and traditional farmers have utilized peatlands to support their liveli- hoods [1,2]. More recently, the ecosystem services approach has stressed that peatlands not only provide an important range of goods, but also deliver other important benefits, including ecosystem regulation, storage of fresh water, carbon, and nutrients, as well as biodiversity conservation and aesthetic values [3]. Peatlands cover only ca. 3% of the global land area [4] but sequester and store more carbon than any other type of terrestrial ecosystem, including the global above-ground carbon stock of forest ecosystems [3,5]. Thus, peatlands provide highly valued natural resources and services [6,7], and are known as the kidneys of the landscape [8]. However, it has been estimated that globally, 10–20% of peatlands have been de- graded [9,10]. This has reduced their ability to provide crucial ecosystem services, includ- ing water retention, nutrient filtration, carbon capture, and to support biodiversity conser- vation [11,12]. This transformation of peatlands is responsible for 5% of the global anthro- pogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions [13]. Declines in both peatland quantity and qual- ity have led to major environmental issues [12] and have negative social impacts [14]. Globally, the European continent has suffered the greatest losses of peatlands, both in absolute and relative terms [12,15,16]. Since the beginning of the 18th century, many European peatlands have been drained for intensive agriculture and forestry [17], as well as for peat extraction [3]. As a result, many EU countries have nearly depleted their peat resources, and now import peat from Eastern Europe [18]. This situation can be improved by both stopping further drainage of peatlands, and by implementing peatland restora- tion and re-wetting. The degradation of peatland ecosystems requires that both ecological processes and patterns [19] are dealt with. Stressing this, current policies and goals for peatland management aim towards conser- vation of those that remain in favourable condition, and restoration of degraded sites. Regard- ing processes, this is expected to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, increase peatland’s capacity to store carbon and capture nutrients, improve water quality and reduce eutrophica- tion of rivers and water bodies, and boost human resilience and prevent the emergence and spread of future diseases [20]. For many years, international conventions, such as the Interna- tional Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, have provided key frameworks for the conservation of ecological patterns and processes, and the wise use of wetlands and their resources. In 2008, the Convention on Biological Diversity [21] provided an overarching framework for biodiversity conservation by defining 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets. The European Green Deal strategy [22] put forward by the European Commission aims towards the EU becoming climate-neutral through making the EU’s econ- omy sustainable by boosting the efficient use of resources and moving to a clean and circular economy, restoring biodiversity, and stopping pollution by 2050. This vison includes reducing the net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050 [23]. These policies are of special relevance for sustainable use, conservation, and restoration of peatlands for climate change mitigation [22] as well as biodiversity conservation [20]. Specifically focusing on ecological patterns, the establishment of functional ecological networks includes the conservation and restoration of habitat patches [24] of the focal ecosys- tem with sufficient quality, size, and spatial configurations to support and maintain ecological processes as well as local populations of focal species [25,26]. The EU’s Green Infrastructure policy [27] places emphasis on the conservation, management, and restoration towards Land 2021, 10, 174 3 of 27 strategically planned networks of representative land cover patches, which are designed to conserve biodiversity, and to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services. Securing ecological processes and patterns requires that evidence-based performance targets should be met. There are limitations on how much degradation habitats can suffer before the viability