Proceedings of the EPBRS Meeting 'Scientific Tools for Biodiversity
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
H Proceedings of the 5th meeting of the European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy 2-4 December 2001 – Brussels SCIENTIFIC TOOLS FOR BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: MONITORING, MODELLING AND EXPERIMENTS WEB VERSION – PART 2 Meeting under the Belgian EU Presidency Edited by H. Segers, E. Branquart, A. Caudron & J. Tack Proceedings of the 5th meeting of the European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy 2-4 December 2001 – Brussels 'Scientific tools for biodiversity conservation: monitoring, modelling and experiments' Web Version – Part 2 Meeting under the Belgian EU Presidency Edited by H. Segers, E. Branquart, A. Caudron & J. Tack Proceedings Proceedings EPBRS Brussels 2001 4 Electronic conference European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy 37 Proceedings EPBRS Brussels 2001 4.1 Session 1. Biodiversity conservation in practice: Successes and failures of biodiversity conservation projects (Moderators: G. Raeymaekers & E. Branquart) 4.1.1 Summary of session 1: The use of biodiversity research for on-site nature protection. Geert Raeymaekers &Mats O.G. Eriksson Ecosystems LTD, Brussels Introduction The following is a summary of the first session of the e-conference “Scientific tools for in-situ biodiversity conservation”. The objective of this session was to focus on concrete nature conservation and to obtain information from ‘field practitioners’ on the use of biodiversity research data for practical conservation. An additional aim of this session was to document biodiversity research issues, which should receive more attention or should be more adequately addressed in the research programmes. The LIFE-Nature projects as a case study The LIFE-Nature projects were chosen as a case study to assess the importance of biodiversity research in practical conservation. Of the circa 500 ongoing LIFE-Nature projects, a selection was made of ca 50 representative projects, which addressed specific scientific questions or where it was apparent that specific scientific research preceded the LIFE-Nature project. The following table indicates some scientific disciplines in the sample of LIFE-Nature projects. Additionally and on the basis of the selected projects, it seemed that research questions are more explicitly addressed in LIFE-Nature projects, which focused on species than on projects, which focused on habitat management. Research issues dealing with monitoring biotic and abiotic parameters were important in most projects. conservation management threats to biodiversity biogeography auto-ecology ecosystem functioning population modelling and analysis conservation genetics taxonomy 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 38 European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy Proceedings EPBRS Brussels 2001 A successful participation to the e-conference. Of the 600 participants (those who registered), more than 110 people participated in to the e-conference, of which circa 80 contributed to this session 1. Overall most participants to the e-conference were closely associated with nature conservation projects or policies. Among the contributors, most came from the scientific world and less (ca 60%) were, at least partly, involved in concrete conservation measures (including only 15 LIFE-Nature beneficiaries). Finally, about half of the contributors were also active policy makers. Generally, the participation seems to indicate for many on-site practitioners “biodiversity research” is not the priority issue of importance. Other, more concrete problems require most of their attention. This session was successful because of the high quality of many presentations and comments and of the wide range of discussed items: from presentations which emphasised the importance of detailed ecological research on a certain butterfly, to those that emphasised the need to address the cultural issues in biodiversity conservation. Finally, the discussions were even emotional. Scientists, policy makers and field practitioners alike have witnessed the decline of species and habitat types and are often deeply involved in on-site conservation actions. Consequently, many presentations stressed ethical issues or lobbied for more concrete actions. Given the wide range of participants and contributions, it is nevertheless possible to draw some conclusions from this session of the e-conference. These are: Independent and rigorous research is the basis for successful biodiversity conservation. In conservation research, science and politics do meet. This dualism between policy and research was apparent in many contributions, in particular in the cases, which discussed monitoring and indicator species. It also epitomises the relationship between policy makers, scientists and field practitioners Whether at the regional, national or European level, political choices decide which species and habitat types should be protected. However, sound scientific (biodiversity) data are needed to prepare these choices, to implement the conservation policies and to monitor the success of these conservation programmes and projects. This implies rigorous and independent scientific research. Additional research projects must address the socio-economical context in which on site conservation takes place. Success or failure of concrete, on-site conservation actions (e.g. LIFE-Nature projects but also other conservation programmes) is influenced by socio-economical problems. For the practitioner, problems such as local opposition to conservation European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy 39 Proceedings EPBRS Brussels 2001 measures and the change in land-use, financial constraints and lack of project management are much greater challenges to over-come than how to link the project actions to the relevant scientific experiences. Scientists and policy makers tend to overlook the fact that for practitioners it is the political and socio-economic constraints that are main difficulties to solve when launching a project. At least field practitioners have to give less attention the scientific problems. Most field practitioners have a good understanding of the biodiversity issues before they start a biotope conservation project. Knowledge about biodiversity is often regarded as minor constraint that has to be compensated by experience, intuition and common sense, although almost no one questions the necessity of sound scientific bases. The majority of the LIFE Nature projects are "experience-based" rather than "evidence-based". In this context, it must be emphasised that several participants stressed the need to pay more attention to the sociological implications of an on-site conservation measure. Although they recognise the need to implement their projects in a sound scientific context, they find various socio-economic constraints the most urgent ones to tackle in order to ensure a successful result. There is a need to set up research projects, which address the socio-economical context in which conservation actions take place. Optimally, these research projects should be integrated with other sectors and should aim the development of management routines through which the various socio-economic constraints can be tackled more smoothly than is often the case in conservation projects at this moment. Several participants pointed to the use of “flagship species” as a means to gain public support for the protection of threatened species or threatened biotopes. However, the use of ‘flagship species’ yields the best results if conservation programmes around flagship species maintain an ecosystems approach and include local developmental aspects. Also, the contributions on the agri-environmental support mechanisms touched upon the socio-economics of biological conservation. In the first place, participants to the e-conference indicated that most agri-environmental measures do not improve the conservation stage of the more sensitive threatened species. Secondly, research is needed to integrate the agri-environmental measures into sustainable farming practices (instead of merely providing some extra income). A need for “expert systems” It might be trivial to say that "knowing what to protect" and "understanding the impacts" are essential for successful on-site conservation that “sound scientific information and data” are needed. However, policy makers, scientists and field practitioners use information in a different context and therefore differ in the value they give to scientific data. Some participants opposed the information value of data against the scientific value of these data. This became clear in the e-conference when the use of “indicator species” was discussed (but also applies when other types 40 European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy Proceedings EPBRS Brussels 2001 of information, e.g. management practices, are disseminated). It was emphasised that compilation and transfer of scientific information must be carried out with much scientific care. Too often during transfer of information, data sets are simplified to such an extent that the message may seem clear but that the context in which the data were gathered has been entirely lost. There is a clear demand of expert systems to consult. But to be effective, these systems must provide the right kind of information for various target groups (e.g. scientists, practitioners, policy markers) and often be adjusted to the demands of the individual projects and persons. In this context, it remains useful to flag up the need of a common build-up of basic knowledge, although it is hardly a new and innovative thought. There