Quality Criteria and Standards As a Basis for the Evaluation of Large-Scale Protected Areas in Germany

Quality criteria and standards as a basis for the evaluation of large-scale protected areas in Germany

Volker Scherfose

Abstract Protected areas are one of the key strategies to conserve the biological diversity in Germany. Shortcomings in the management efficiency of large-scale protected areas have impeded the achievement of the goals set for each protected area as well as the national conservation targets. In order to address this weakness, comprehensive evaluation systems based on quality criteria and standards have been developed for national parks, nature parks, and biosphere reserves in Germany. These monitor the status and trends of large-scale protected areas in a broad range such as framework conditions, natural conditions, conservation measures, institutional issues, education and research activities. The evaluation systems help identify weaknesses and enable the implementation of corrective measures and adjustment in the management strategies. In this paper the criteria systems are reviewed based on the experience of recent evaluations of large-scale protected areas in Germany and comparative analyses. Suggestions are presented towards the further refinement of the sets of criteria.

1 Introduction The last century has seen a steep worldwide increase in the area covered by protected areas (Figure1). Despite these international efforts, the global trend of declining biodiversity continues unabated. This underlines that not only the extent of protected areas, but also their quality and management efficiency need to be enhanced in order to achieve the goal of stopping the loss of global biological diversity. It also underlines that protected areas need to be complemented by integrated conservation strategies on the vast areas outside of protected areas.

In Germany the number of protected areas, and in particular of large-scale protected areas, has also been growing since the adoption of the CBD programme of work on protected areas in 2004. As a result, two national parks (the Eifel and Kellerwald-Edersee National Parks), three biosphere reserves (the Bliesgau, Schwäbische Alb and Karstlandschaft Südharz Biosphere Reserves) and a number of nature parks were established. Despite this positive development, the status and number of endangered species and habitats have not changed fundamentally. For example, about 70 % of all types of habitats in Germany continue to be endangered (Riecken et al. 2006). The status and trends of the populations of breeding birds is mixed. While the populations of rare species, such as the common crane, the white-tailed eagle, the black stork, the eagle owl or the bluethroat, are growing, the populations of once common species, such as the snipe, partridge, sky lark and lapwing, have been included in the Red List due to their rapid decline in numbers (Südbeck et al. 2007). Quality criteria and standards as a basis for the evaluation of large-scale protected areas in Germany

Figure 1: Global increase in the cumulative area covered by protected areas (based on Chape et al. 2008)

Already during the 1990s it emerged that the efficiency and quality of protected areas in Germany was inadequate and needed to be improved. For example, an assessment on the status of German nature conservation areas found only 18% of the protected areas in good condition, while 56% were in medium and 26% in bad condition (for further details see Haarmann & Pretscher 1993). Due to these shortcomings, it has been widely accepted that systems to systematically monitor and evaluate the management efficiency of German protected areas need to be put in place in order to identify weaknesses at an early stage and guide the adjustment of management strategies resulting in an overall improvement of the quality of the protected areas in Germany.

In order to address this gap, the Government of Germany initiated the development of evaluation systems to periodically assess the status, trends and management efficiency of large-scale protected areas. Thus, sets of quality criteria were selected for national parks and nature parks and the existing national evaluation criteria for UNESCO biosphere reserves were revised based on a thorough review (Scherfose 2004). This was done in a consultative manner and through convening several workshops focusing on the efficiency of the management of protected areas (Wörler et al. 2006, Stolton 2008).

The effort by the German Government to establish national evaluation systems for large-scale protected areas was also a response to its international commitments under the CBD. The CBD programme of work on protected areas requires its Member States to set up monitoring and evaluation systems for their protected areas based on quality criteria and standards according to the following targets (COP 7; Decision VII/28):

• By 2010, frameworks for monitoring, evaluating and reporting to assess the management efficiency of protected areas at site, national, regional and transboundary levels are adopted and implemented by Parties (Target 4.2). • By 2010, national and regional systems are established to enable effective monitoring of the extent, status and trends of protected areas at national, regional and global levels (Target 4.3).

2 Quality criteria and standards as a basis for the evaluation of large-scale protected areas in Germany

In the following, we will present an overview of the criteria based evaluation systems, which were set up to assess and improve the management efficiency of large-scale protected areas in Germany.

2 The system of large-scale protected areas in Germany The German system of protected areas basically comprises seven different categories, including national parks, nature conservation areas, sites of the EU habitat directive, sites of the EU birds directive, biosphere reserves, landscape protection areas and nature parks. These categories pursue different goals and vary significantly in size, number and status of protection (see also Table 1).

Table 1: Overview of the categories of protected areas in Germany for 2012; large-scale protected areas are highlighted (‘!!!’: strong protection; ‘!!’: medium protection; ‘!’: weak protection) Source: www.bfn.de/0308_gebietsschutz.html and www.bfn.de/0316_natura 2000.html

Category Quantity IUCN Degree of Proportion of the land category protection area of Germany National parks 14 II and V !!! 0.54 % National Natural 0 III ? 0 % Monuments * Nature conservation areas 8,501 IV !!! 3.7 % Sites of EU habitat directive 4,619 !! 9.3% Sites of EU bird directive 740 !! 11.2 % Biosphere reserves ** 16 (15) !! 3.4 % Landscape protection areas 7,327 V ! 28,3 % Nature parks 103 V ! 26,8 % * - new category since 2010 ** (15) – number of biosphere reserves acknowledged by UNESCO

Large-scale protected areas in Germany comprise national parks, biosphere reserves and nature parks as highlighted in Table 1. Their geographic distribution is depicted in Figure 2. These three categories pursue different purposes. While nature parks are mainly established for human recreation and enjoyment, national parks pursues the main purpose of setting aside an area for natural processes without any human disturbance. Biosphere reserves instead are areas that integrate nature conservation with rational use of natural resources and education with the aim to achieve a balanced relationship between man and nature. Biosphere Reserves are designated by UNESCO’s Programme on Man and the Biosphere (MAB). Table 2 provides an overview of the key characteristics of the large-scale protected areas in Germany, which have been slightly modified during the last decades.

While nature parks were set up as early as 1956, the first national park (Bavarian Forest) was designated in 1970 and many biosphere reserves were designated much later. After the reunification of Germany in 1990 the system of large-scale protected areas was quickly expanded to protect the vast areas with high value for the conservation of nature in the eastern part of Germany. An overview of the current status of national parks, biosphere reserves and nature parks is available (Scherfose 2009, German MAB National Committee 2005 and VDN 2009).

3 Quality criteria and standards as a basis for the evaluation of large-scale protected areas in Germany

Figure 2: Map of all large-scale protected areas in Germany (Green: national parks; red: biosphere reserves; hatched: nature parks)

4 Quality criteria and standards as a basis for the evaluation of large-scale protected areas in Germany

Table 2: Overview of the key characteristics of large-scale protected areas in Germany

Category Size (ha) Main purpose Legal requirements National 3,000 – To enable undisturbed natural Requirements of a nature parks 441,500 processes and dynamics on at least conservation area are met in 75% of the area a large part of the national park Biosphere 11,700 – To foster the integration of Requirements of a nature reserves 443,100 sustainable land management, conservation area are met in conservation of cultural landscapes a large part of the biosphere with high species and habitat reserve; otherwise, diversity and the conservation of requirements of a landscape agro-diversity protection area are met. Nature parks 11,151 – To promote sustainable tourism / Combination of landscape 374,000 recreation, nature conservation, protection and nature environmental education, conservation areas. sustainable regional development and sustainable land use

Like for the protected areas in general, borders of large-scale protected areas partly overlap. For example, the area of the Wadden Sea National Parks significantly overlaps with the area of the Wadden Sea Biosphere Reserves. The same applies to the Berchtesgaden National Park and Biosphere Reserve as well as the various biosphere reserves and nature parks of the Palatinate Forest, Rhön (Bavaria and Hesse) and the Elbe Floodplain of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. For the future, it is desirable to minimize or eliminate such an overlap in order to establish a consistent system of large-scale protected areas.

3 Development of evaluation systems for large-scale protected areas in Germany Criteria based systems for the purpose of evaluation were first set up for biosphere reserves in Germany in 1996 (German National MAB Committee 1996a). This initiative mainly stemmed from the recognition that a clear delineation of biosphere reserves from other large-scale protected areas was needed. As a consequence, the nature parks and the national parks established similar systems of evaluation criteria.

In general, it is widely accepted that the efficiency of protected areas in terms of achieving their conservation goals generally depends on a number of external and internal factors. External factors include the effects of climate change and the influx of nutrients and pollutants from outside the protected area, while the management capacity of the park administration is an internal factor. External factors are often beyond the control of the management of the protected area. Therefore, evaluations primarily focus on internal factors, because if weaknesses in internal factors are identified, it is possible for the park management to develop and implement corrective measures and adapt its strategies.

Key factors for the successful management of protected areas were listed by Lockwood et al. 2006, including the following:

• Protected area has clear borders 5 Quality criteria and standards as a basis for the evaluation of large-scale protected areas in Germany

• Adequate size of the protected area • Buffer zones and/or ecological corridors are established • Sound management plans • Clear legal status • Clearly defined purpose and objectives of the protected area • High proportion of public ownership or ownership by nature conservation societies • Sufficient financial resources for measures required to achieve conservation goals, such as species management or rehabilitation measures • Sufficient staff with adequate qualifications for the management of the park • Administration with sufficient competences • Sufficient staff with adequate qualifications for area control and guidance of visitors • Sufficient financial resources for research and monitoring • Periodic evaluation of conservation measures and management efficiency • High level of acceptance within the local population

These key factors are reflected in the selected set of criteria and standards of the evaluation systems for national parks, biosphere reserves and nature parks in Germany, which will be described below.

3.1 Evaluation system of German national parks From 2005 to 2008, EUROPARC Germany developed quality criteria and standards with the aim to establish a procedure to periodically evaluate the management efficiency of national parks in Germany. The selection process was conducted in a consultative manner with the support of the directors of the German national parks and as part of a ‘Research & Development project’, supported by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (EUROPARC 2008a, b). As a result of this process, 10 fields of action were identified, which form the overall structure of the evaluation system. Within these 10 fields of action, 44 criteria were selected (see Table 3). For each of the criteria a standard was defined, which should be met by a national park within a defined timeframe. The standards for each criterion are listed in EUROPARC 2008a, here we just want to present a few examples:

For the criterion size the standard to be reached was defined as follows: ‘…A national park shall cover an area of at least 10,000 hectares. As an exception, a smaller area can be designated as a national park, only if the area is internationally representative. The size shall be selected in a way that its conservation objectives are achievable within its boundaries.’ Another example is the standard for the criterion space for natural resources, which is formulated as follows: ‘A large part of a national park is set aside to enable natural dynamics with as little disturbance as possible. In general, this standard shall be reached on at least 75% of the area of the national park, within a period of 30 years after the designation as a national park. The areas set aside for the protection of natural processes shall be connected and their outer boundaries shall be kept at a minimum…’ Longer transition periods can be defined under certain circumstances.

Some of the standards as defined in the evaluation system are currently not yet met by German national parks. In particular, the standard defined for the criterion "space for natural processes" remains unrealized in many parks. While the German nature conservation legislation requires national parks to set aside at least 50% for natural processes, the standard as formulated by EUROPARC reflects the IUCN category II requiring natural processes on at least 75% of the area of a national park. The minimum size of 10,000 hectares is not met by all national parks either.

6 Quality criteria and standards as a basis for the evaluation of large-scale protected areas in Germany

Table 3: Overview of the ten selected fields of action and the respective quality criteria for the evaluation of German national parks

Fields of action Set of criteria Basic conditions / Framework - Legal status - Purpose of the protected area - Planning principles - Administrative competences - Ownership rights - Boundaries and shape Conservation of biological diversity - Size of the area set aside for natural processes and natural dynamics - Size of the protected area - Level of naturalness - Habitats of international and national significance - Species management - Extent of biotope connectivity Institutional management - Organisational structure - Composition of staff - Ranger system - Staff management - Financial management - Advisory boards and curatorship Protected area management - Concept for landscape development - Management plan - Zoning - Rehabilitation measures - Strategies for sustainable use - Visitor guidance and area control - Integration of the national park in the region - Monitoring and evaluation of measures Cooperation and partners - Cooperation agreements - Participation in technical working groups and networks - Volunteer management Communication - Clear key messages - Corporate design - Communication flows Education - Education strategies - Training courses - Guidance of visitors Nature experience and - Programme of nature experience recreation - Infrastructure for visitors Monitoring and research - Coordination of research - Basic research - Monitoring - Documentation Regional development - Marketing of the national park - Stimuli for the region - Sustainable regional development

7 Quality criteria and standards as a basis for the evaluation of large-scale protected areas in Germany

In order to assess the status of national parks the quality criteria and standards were incorporated in an overall evaluation procedure. This evaluation procedure was conducted in several steps between 2009 and 2012, including the following:

• Self-evaluation by the national park administrations based on a questionnaire, which assesses a number of indicators and quality standards. The selection of indicators was guided by the evaluation framework of the IUCN Commission on Protected Areas. • On the basis of the answers in the questionnaire a draft evaluation report is prepared by an independent auditor, who analyses the strengths and weaknesses of each national park. In the report all fields of action are equally weighted. • An evaluation committee verifies the conclusions in the draft report based on visits to the national parks and discussions with the park administration. The committee consists of eight representatives of the Bundesländer (Federal States), the working group of national parks, universities, non-governmental organisations, the Federal Government and EUROPARC Germany. • After the field visits, the final evaluation report is prepared, which may be published by the park administration or the Bundesländer (Federal States) on a voluntary basis.

In 2007 the evaluation methodology developed by EUROPARC was tested in four national parks. This was the first time that a subset of German national parks was evaluated based on a standardized system of criteria and standards, even though at the international level evaluations of national parks have already been recognized as an important tool of quality management and thus have increasingly been implemented since the 1990s (Hockings et al. 2006). The tests were also done to improve the questionnaire. An evaluation of the remaining ten German national parks was carried out between 2009 and 2012. The results of the evaluation were published by EUROPARC Germany (2012; 2013).

In order to continuously monitor progress towards the objectives of the national parks and assess its management efficiency, it is recommended that the entire evaluation process should be carried out every ten years and complemented by internal evaluation procedures to be conducted on a five years basis.

3.2 The evaluation system of UNESCO biosphere reserves in Germany In 1996, only a few years after most biosphere reserves had been designated, criteria for the admission and the periodic evaluation of UNESCO biosphere reserves in Germany were developed (German National MAB Committee 1996a). The evaluation system is based on a set of criteria, which was slightly modified in 2007. In general, structural and functional criteria were selected (see Table 4). For each of the selected criteria a standard was defined (for further details see German National MAB Committee 2007).

The Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves forms the basis for the evaluation system set up for German biosphere reserves (German National Committee 1996b). Article 9 of this Framework determines that the status of each biosphere reserve has to be evaluated every ten years according to the criteria as defined in Article 4. The designated administration of the biosphere reserve is responsible for preparing the report, which has to be submitted to the Secretariat of the MAB Programme.

8 Quality criteria and standards as a basis for the evaluation of large-scale protected areas in Germany

Table 4: Structural and functional criteria for the establishment and the periodic evaluation of UNESCO biosphere reserves in Germany

Structural criteria Functional criteria • Representativeness • Sustainability • Size and boundaries • Ecosystem and landscape management • Zoning • Biodiversity • Legal status • Research • Administration and institutional • Monitoring management • Education for sustainable development • Planning • Public relations and communication • Integration into the worldwide network of biosphere reserves

In order to assess, to what extent German biosphere reserves meet the evaluation standards, a standardized evaluation procedure has evolved, which typically comprises three meetings of an evaluation committee and one visit to the biosphere reserves (see also for more details Scherfose 2006). The evaluation committee consists of members of the German National MAB Committee as well as representatives of the Bundesländer (Federal States) and of the evaluated biosphere reserve.

Figure 3: The unique natural river floodplains are protected in the Elbtalaue Biosphere Reserve (Photo: V. Scherfose)

9 Quality criteria and standards as a basis for the evaluation of large-scale protected areas in Germany

Since a periodic evaluation became compulsory in 1991, 13 UNESCO biosphere reserves have been assessed by the German National Committee. The evaluation detected a number of weaknesses and deficits that require the management of the biosphere reserves to implement corrective measures. Some weaknesses are shared by many biosphere reserves. For example, it emerged that the number and qualification of staff is typically not adequate given the plethora of responsibilities and tasks. It also became clear that the agricultural and forestry land management is often inadequate and thus, there is a risk that the conservation goals cannot be achieved. Lastly, the evaluation demonstrated that the size of the core zone was below the minimum size, which was set as a standard in Germany, in five of the evaluated biosphere reserves.

3.3 The evaluation system of German nature parks The association of German nature parks in collaboration with EUROPARC Germany developed quality criteria for German nature parks in 2004 and 2005 (Federation of German nature parks 2008). This initiative was funded by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation. The system of quality criteria was developed with the intention to provide the institutions responsible for the management of nature parks with tools for periodic self-evaluations. It was expected that the results of the evaluations would guide the allocation of resources, help overcome identified weaknesses and lead to a continuous optimization of the management of the nature parks.

The set of selected evaluation criteria is assessed by using a questionnaire with 41 questions in five fields of activity (see Table 5). The evaluation procedure starts with a self-evaluation by the nature parks based on the above-mentioned questionnaire. The completed questionnaire together with a profile of the nature park are submitted to an external auditor, who is responsible to verify the answers provided by the nature park and correct the results of the self-evaluation, if necessary. Typically, the external auditors are representatives of other nature parks.

Table 5: Main thematic areas of the questionnaire for the evaluation of German nature parks

Field of activity Main thematic areas Management and Management plan of the nature park, contents of the plan, other basic organisation plans, staff composition and management, financial management, partnership agreements, awards, environmental management Nature and Habitats, management of visitors, registration and monitoring, NATURA landscape 2000, agriculture, forestry, historic land-use practices, nature conservation measures, cooperation Tourism and Marketing strategies, information materials for tourists, accommodation recreation and catering, programme for nature experience, concept and programme of activities in sports, tourism and recreation, cooperation Communication and Information centre(s), guided walks and information events, availability of education information material, website, public relations and marketing activities, communication strategy, education programme, cooperation Sustainable Cultural programme, regional economic development, marketing of regional regional products, settlement development and maintenance of local development architecture, local transport, initiatives in the field of sustainable regional development, cooperation

10 Quality criteria and standards as a basis for the evaluation of large-scale protected areas in Germany

The criteria also formed the basis for the so-called "nature parks quality campaign", which was initiated in 2006 with the intention to create an incentive system for nature parks (Porzelt 2008). In this campaign nature parks were evaluated and those, which reached a certain number of points, were awarded as a "Quality Nature Park". Even though voluntary, the participation was quite high during the first evaluation period (2005-2008), with 65 out of 103 nature parks participating. After completion of the first evaluation period by the German Federation of Nature Parks, it became clear that the criteria based questionnaire as well as the associated point system used for the award "Quality Nature Park" have to be slightly adjusted prior to the next evaluation.

It is recommended that the national evaluation is repeated on a five years basis in order to foster a continuous improvement of nature parks based on sound quality management. Hence, the award "Quality Nature Park" is also only granted for five years.

Figure 4: The heathlands and oligotrophic meadows in the nature park “Lüneburger Heide” are maintained by extensive agricultural land use (Photo: V.Scherfose)

4 Comparison of the evaluation criteria of national parks, biosphere reserves and nature parks in Germany As described above, evaluation systems based on criteria are in place for the three categories of large-scale protected areas in Germany. The criteria used for evaluation purposes in national parks, nature parks and biosphere reserves are compared in order to identify gaps and develop recommendations for the further refinement of the sets of criteria. The results of the comparison are summarized in Table 6, which is presented according to the 10 fields of action used as the basis for

11 Quality criteria and standards as a basis for the evaluation of large-scale protected areas in Germany the evaluation methodology of German national parks. Even though not part of any evaluation system in Germany, one new field of action "pressures and threats" and some further criteria were additionally listed in this table, because it is considered to be one critical aspect of protected area management (see also Leverington et al. 2008).

Table 6: Comparison of the evaluation criteria for national parks, biosphere reserves and nature parks [‘x’: the criterion is assessed in the evaluation system; ‘(x)’: the criterion is not part of the set of evaluation criteria for the admission and evaluation of UNESCO biosphere reserves, but it is implicit in the definition of another related criterion; ‘-‘: the criterion is not assessed in the evaluation system]

Biosphere Fields of action with criteria/standards National parks Nature parks reserves Basic conditions, framework Legal status/protection by legislation x x - Law accomplishment/conformity - - - Purpose of the protected area x x - Superior planning x x - Administrative competences x x - Land ownership x zone I/II - Delineation of boundaries x x - Size (minimum area) x x - Population density / settlements - - - Protection of biodiversity and natural dynamics Space for natural processes x zone I - Degree of fragmentation x - - Biodiversity x x - Level of naturalness x zone I - Habitats of international and national significance x x - Species management x x - Hunting (x) - - Biotope connectivity x - x Proportion of nature conservation areas and Natura x x x 2000 areas Sustainable use (Traditional) landscape management x x x Sustainable land and natural resources - x x management Sustainable economic use (2nd and 3rd sector) - x partial Land consumption - (x) - Environmental standards in tourist facilities - - x Concept of sustainable transport x (x) x Pressures and threats Pressures and threats are minimized - - - Conservation of natural resources - - - Monitoring of pressures and threats - - - 12 Quality criteria and standards as a basis for the evaluation of large-scale protected areas in Germany

Biosphere Fields of action with criteria/standards National parks Nature parks reserves Organisation/governance Institutional structure of the administration x x - Staff composition x x x Area control by rangers x x x Staff management and training x - x Level of funding (incl. reliability) x x x Advisory board x (x) x Management (efficiency) Concept for landscape development x (x) - Management plan/framework plan x x x Work programmes - - - Zoning x x - Rehabilitation activities x x - Visitor guidance x (x) x Evaluation of activities x x x Documentation of realised goals and plans - - - Monitoring and research Research coordination x x - Research strategy x (x) - Basic research x (x) - Monitoring and long-term ecological observations x x x Storage of monitoring and research data x x - Cooperation and partnerships Partnership agreements x x x Involvement of communities and stakeholders x x x Participation in working groups and networks x x x International cooperation and support - x - Management of volunteers x - - Communication, education and awareness Communication strategy/clear key messages x - x Corporate design x x - Communication and public relations x x x Programme for education and awareness raising x x - Infrastructure for education and awareness raising x x x Visitor support x x x Nature experience and recreation Programme for nature experience x - x Programme for sports - - x Tourism and recreation - x x Infrastructure for visitors x x x Regional development Image x (x) -

13 Quality criteria and standards as a basis for the evaluation of large-scale protected areas in Germany

Biosphere Fields of action with criteria/standards National parks Nature parks reserves Integration in the region x x x Stimuli for sustainable regional development, x (x) x Impulses for the region, economic effects Miscellaneous Labels - x x

Overall, the comparison demonstrated a high level of consistency between the different sets of criteria developed for national parks and biosphere reserves. However, the evaluation system developed for nature parks was found to be quite different and particularly lacked quality criteria in the area of "framework", "protection of biodiversity", "management efficiency" and "monitoring/ research". In these areas additional criteria are needed in order to move towards higher conservation standards and enhance the overall quality of nature parks.

Orange cells within Table 6 indicate that the missing criterion is important and should be added in an updated version of the respective evaluation criteria system. Major gaps were identified in terms of "protection of biodiversity", "management efficiency" and “pressures and threats”.

5 Conclusion The development of evaluation systems based on criteria and standards for large-scale protected areas in Germany was a first important step not only to fulfil the commitments under the CBD programme of work on protected areas, but also to create a basis towards a higher management efficiency of large-scale protected areas in Germany. The first evaluations that were conducted in biosphere reserves, national parks and nature parks helped identify a number of weaknesses in large- scale protected areas that can now be addressed. For example, the deficits regarding the extension of the core zones in some national parks and biosphere reserves have to be reduced. Here it is up to the nature parks as well to establish core zones in order to reach the German government's target of adding 2% of the German state area to natural development (wilderness).

A further obvious deficit is the lack of personnel – and often also of finances – in many large-scale protected areas; this is especially the case with biosphere reserves and even more so with nature parks (Köster & Liesen, 2005). The fact that there are so many nature parks, which actually cover 27% of the Federal state area, means that some of them are in a fairly poor condition. The main deficits of these nature parks are the following: the small amount of nature conservation and landscape protection areas; the fact that the overlapping rate with NATURA 2000 sites is minimal; a small amount of extensive land use; a high proportion of non-natural forests; and a park administration which is hardly noticeable (see also Steer et al., 2008). The urgent improvement of the quality of the park landscapes is therefore vital.

The harmonized criteria systems at the national level also enable a coarse comparison of different management strategies applied by large-scale protected areas in Germany. The results of such a national comparison may also generate important lessons and help identify key factors of success for the management of protected areas that should be up-scaled. These lessons will also contribute to the international debate on effective ways to increase the management efficiency of protected 14 Quality criteria and standards as a basis for the evaluation of large-scale protected areas in Germany areas. Thus, the introduction of comprehensive quality management systems for large-scale protected areas is an important contribution of Germany to strengthening the worldwide system of protected areas.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank Mrs Moira Davidson-Seger and Dr. Brigitte Schuster for briefly reviewing the translation of the publication and Mrs Ursula Euler (BfN) for preparing Figure 2.

References Chape, S., Spalding, M. & M. D. Jenkins (2008): The world's protected areas. – UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre. University of California Press, Berkeley, p. 365.

EUROPARC Germany (2008a): Quality criteria and standards for German national parks. – EUROPARC- Germany, Berlin, p. 14.

EUROPARC Germany (2008b): Qualitätskriterien und -standards für deutsche Nationalparke. – EUROPARC Germany, Berlin, p. 92.

EUROPARC Germany (2012): Evaluation of German National Parks. – EUROPARC Germany, Berlin, p. 14.

EUROPARC Germany (2013): Managementqualität deutscher Nationalparks. - EUROPARC Germany, Berlin, p. 86.

Federation of German Nature Parks (2008): German Nature Parks´s Quality Campaign. - VDN, Bonn, p. 79.

German National MAB Committee (Ed.; 2005): Full of life. - UNESCO Biosphere Reserves – Model Regions for Sustainable Development. – Springer Verlag, p. 174.

German National MAB Committee (1996a): Kriterien für Anerkennung und Überprüfung von Biosphärenreservaten der UNESCO in Deutschland. – Bonn, p. 72.

German National MAB Committee (1996b): MAB-Biosphärenreservate. Die Sevilla-Strategie und die internationalen Leitlinien für das Weltnetz. – Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn, p. 24.

German National MAB Committee (2007): Kriterien für die Anerkennung und Überprüfung von Biosphärenreservaten der UNESCO in Deutschland; 2. Ed. – Bonn, p. 66.

Haarmann, K. & P. Pretscher (1993): Zustand und Zukunft der Naturschutzgebiete in Deutschland. – Schr.R. f. Naturschutz und Landschaftsökologie 39, p. 226.

Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Leverington, F., Dudley, N. & J. Courrau (2006): Evaluating Effectiveness – a framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas (2. Edit.). – IUCN, Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 14, p. 105.

Köster,U. & J. Liesen (2005): Nature Parks – prospects for rural areas in Europe. - Federation of German nature parks; Bonn 2005; pp. 87-103.

15 Quality criteria and standards as a basis for the evaluation of large-scale protected areas in Germany

Leverington, F., Hockings, M. & K. Lemos Costa (2008): Management effectiveness evaluation in protected areas – a global study. – University of Queensland, Gatton, IUCN WCPA, TNC, WWF. Australia, p. 70.

Lockwood, M., Worboys, G.L. & A. Kothari (2006): Managing Protected areas – a global guide. – Earthscan, London, p. 802.

Porzelt, M. (2008): German Nature Park´s Quality Campaign. – In: Stolton,S. (Ed., 2008): Assessment of Management Effectiveness in European Protected Areas. – BfN-Skripten 238, pp. 21-24.

Riecken, U., Finck, P., Raths, U., Schröder, E. & A. Ssymank (2006): Rote Liste der gefährdeten Biotoptypen Deutschlands. 2. Fassung. – Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 34, p. 318.

Scherfose, V. (2004): Großschutzgebiete: Vorstellungen des Kompetenzzentrums hinsichtlich Schutzgebietsstandards und Qualitätskriterien für deutsche Großschutzgebiete. – In: Stolpe,G. & W.Fischer (2004): Benefits beyond boundaries. – BfN-Skripten 112, pp. 43-55.

Scherfose, V. (2006): Erfolgskontrollen in Naturschutzgroßprojekten des Bundes und die regelmäßige Überprüfung von UNESCO-Biosphärenreservaten als Beispiele von Evaluierungsverfahren. – In: Wörler,K., Burmester,A. & G.Stolpe (2006): Evaluierung der Managementeffektivität in deutschen Großschutzgebieten. – BfN-Skripten 173, pp. 60-75.

Scherfose, V. (2009): Stand der Entwicklung deutscher Nationalparke. – Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 72, pp. 7-24.

Steer, U., Scherfose, V. & S. Balzer (2008): Ausgewählte Aspekte des deutschen Schutzgebietssystems. – Natur und Landschaft 83, pp. 93-100.

Stolton, S. (Ed., 2008): Assessment of Management Effectiveness in European Protected Areas. – BfN- Skripten 238, p. 103.

Südbeck, P., Bauer, H.-G., Boschert, M., Boye, P. & W. Knief (2007): Rote Liste der Brutvögel Deutschlands. 4. Fassung. – Bericht zum Vogelschutz 44, pp. 23-81.

VDN (2009): Naturparke in Deutschland – Aufgaben und Ziele. – Bonn, p. 32.

Wörler, K., Burmester, A. & G. Stolpe (Bearb., 2006): Evaluierung der Managementeffektivität in deutschen Großschutzgebieten. – BfN-Skripten 173, p. 147.

Contact Dr. Volker Scherfose Head of Division, Site Protection/Large-Scale Conservation Areas Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Konstantinstraße 110, D-53179 Bonn, Germany Website: www.bfn.de Email: [email protected]

This paper was published in August 2013 at www.bfn.de.