bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.14.202341; this version posted July 15, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC 4.0 International license. 1 Identification of areas of very high biodiversity value 2 to achieve the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 key 3 commitments. A case study using terrestrial Natura 4 2000 network in Romania 5 6 Iulia V. Miu1, Laurentiu Rozylowicz1, Viorel D. Popescu1,2, Paulina Anastasiu3 7 8 1 Center for Environmental Research, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania 9 2 Department of Biological Sciences, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, United States of America 10 3 Dimitrie Brândză Botanical Garden, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania 11 12 Corresponding Author: 13 Laurentiu Rozylowicz1 14 1 N. Balcescu, Bucharest, 010041, Romania 15 Email address: [email protected] 16 17 Abstract 18 European Union seeks to increase the protected areas by 2030 to 30% of the EU terrestrial 19 surface, of which at least 10% of areas high biodiversity value should be strictly protected. 20 Designation of Natura 2000 network, the backbone of nature protection in the EU, was mostly an 21 expert-opinion process with little systematic conservation planning. The designation of the 22 Natura 2000 network in Romania followed the same non-systematic approach, resulting in a 23 suboptimal representation of invertebrates and plants. To help identify areas with very high 24 biodiversity without repeating past planning mistakes, we present a reproducible example of 25 spatial prioritization using Romania's current terrestrial Natura 2000 network and coarse-scale 26 terrestrial species occurrence. 27 The planning exercise uses 371 terrestrial Natura 2000 Sites of Community Importance (Natura 28 2000 SCI), designated to protect 164 terrestrial species listed under Annex II of Habitats 29 Directive in Romania. Species occurrences in terrestrial Natura 2000 and Natura 2000 sites were 30 aggregated at a Universal Traverse Mercator spatial resolution of 1 km2. To identify priority 31 terrestrial Natura 2000 sites for species conservation, and to explore if the Romanian Natura 32 2000 network sufficiently represents species included in Annex II of Habitats Directive, we used 33 Zonation v4, a decision support software tool for spatial conservation planning. We carried out bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.14.202341; this version posted July 15, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC 4.0 International license. 34 the analyses nationwide (all Natura 2000 sites) and separately for each biogeographic region 35 (i.e., Alpine, Continental, Pannonian, Steppic and Black Sea). 36 The performance of national-level planning of top priorities is low. On average, when 37 considering 10% of the landscape of Natura 2000 sites as protected, 20% of the distribution of 38 species listed in Annex II of Habitats Directive are protected. As a consequence, the 39 representation of species by priority terrestrial Natura 2000 sites is reduced when compared to 40 the initial set of species. When planning by taxonomic group, the top-priority areas include only 41 10% of invertebrate distribution in Natura 2000. When selecting top-priority areas by 42 biogeographical region, there are significantly fewer gap species than in the national level and by 43 taxa scenarios; thus, the scenario outperforms the national-level prioritization. The designation of 44 strictly protected areas as required by the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 should be followed 45 by setting clear targets for the representation of species and habitats at the biogeographical 46 region level. 47 48 Introduction 49 Protected areas, a critical tool for nature conservation strategies, are intended to ensure the long- 50 term persistence and viability of biodiversity. They should ideally support as many as possible 51 rare, threatened, or endemic taxa, particularly those with low mobility and high sensitivity to 52 environmental alterations (Geldmann et al. 2013; Gray et al. 2016; Possingham et al. 2006; 53 Rodrigues et al. 2004). When planning protected areas, states around the world are guided by 54 supranational policies such as Convention on Biological Diversity and EU Biodiversity Strategy 55 for 2030, which issue ambitious targets to increase the extent of protected areas. For example, 56 Convention on Biological Diversity (CDB) Aichi Target on Protected Areas calls for protection 57 of 17% of world terrestrial and inland water areas in key regions for biodiversity and ecosystem 58 services (UNEP 2011), while the EU Member States seek to increase the Natura 2000 network 59 by 2030 to 30% of EU terrestrial surface and designate the strict protection of areas of very high 60 biodiversity and climate value (European Commission 2020). 61 A promising tool to help to build an ecologically-sound network of protected areas meeting the 62 CDB or EU targets is systematic conservation planning (Margules & Pressey 2000). Systematic 63 conservation planning maximizes conservation benefits while minimizing impacts on other 64 resources, such as the availability of productive land. Spatial conservation prioritization, as a part bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.14.202341; this version posted July 15, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC 4.0 International license. 65 of systematic conservation planning, mostly relies on the complementarity concept (i.e., 66 selection of complementary areas to avoid duplication of conservation effort) and is considered 67 an efficient instrument for identifying spatial priorities and achieving conservation goals 68 (Margules & Pressey 2000; Pressey et al. 2007). 69 One of the most extensive networks of conservation areas in the world is the Natura 2000 70 network, which has been created to operationalize EU Birds (Directive 2009/147/EC) and 71 Habitats Directives (Council Directive 92/43/EEC). To date, Natura 2000 covers 18% of EU 72 terrestrial areas, thus meeting the CDB Aichi Target on Protected Areas (UNEP 2011). The 73 effectiveness and representativity of Natura 2000 were evaluated for different taxonomic groups 74 and geographic areas, and except for an agreement on better than random planning performance, 75 the conclusions tended to highlight suboptimal planning (D'Amen et al. 2013; Dimitrakopoulos 76 et al. 2004; Kukkala et al. 2016; Lisón et al. 2013; Müller et al. 2018; Müller et al. 2020; Votsi et 77 al. 2016). The suboptimal planning of Natura 2000 at the EU and member states level originates 78 from an uncoordinated designation process (Apostolopoulou & Pantis 2009; Ioja et al. 2010; 79 Lisón et al. 2017; Orlikowska et al. 2016), which was partially solved by selecting new sites after 80 expert-opinion evaluations during the Natura 2000 biogeographical seminars (Kenig-Witkowska 81 2017; Manolache et al. 2017). Furthermore, the efficacy of the Natura 2000 network was 82 extensively evaluated from other perspectives, for example, for understanding the effect of 83 climate change on representativity (Araújo et al. 2011; Popescu et al. 2013) and for coordinating 84 conservation investments (Hermoso et al. 2017; Nita et al. 2016). 85 The designation of the Natura 2000 network in Romania followed the same non-systematic 86 approach. The process began between 2007 and 2009 with designating 316 Sites of Community 87 Importance covering Habitats Directive, Special Protection Areas, and Birds Directive. This 88 process has continued to today; there are 606 designated Natura 2000 sites that encompass 23% 89 of the total country's area (54214 km2) (DG Environment 2020; Manolache et al. 2017). Of 90 these, 426 are terrestrial Natura 2000 Sites of Community Importance, covering 40310 km2 (17% 91 of Romania's terrestrial surface) (DG Environment 2020; EIONET 2020). During the first two 92 designation stages, the process was highly biased towards overlapping existing national protected 93 areas (Ioja et al. 2010; Manolache et al. 2017), and thus, even if the 17% targets are met, the 94 effectiveness of Natura 2000 in representing habitats and species is questionable. For example, 95 Ioja et al. (2010) confirmed that overlapping existing national protected areas resulted in a bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.14.202341; this version posted July 15, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC 4.0 International license. 96 suboptimal representation of plants and invertebrates; Miu et al. (2018) highlighted 97 underrepresentation of agricultural landscape in Dobrogea, while Manzu et al. (2013) and 98 Popescu et al. (2013) found that the Natura 2000 network will not protect plants, reptiles, and 99 amphibians if species ranges shift under climate change scenarios. 100 With the latest extensions, the Romanian Natura 2000 network covers all species and habitats 101 listed in Habitats and Birds Directives (DG Environment 2020; Manolache et al. 2017); however, 102 the new EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 requires an expansion from 23% to 30% of the total 103 country's area and the strict protection designation for areas with very high biodiversity and 104 climate value within the network (European Commission 2020). To help identify areas with very 105 high biodiversity and to provide an example of systematic planning of a protected area network, 106 we present a reproducible example of spatial prioritization using Romania's current terrestrial 107 Natura 2000 network and coarse-scale terrestrial species occurrence.