SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT PLAN FOR A SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT POLICY (SPSD II) Part 4: Mixed actions FINAL REPORT FEASIBILITY OF ECOLOGICAL NETWORKS: ECOLOGICAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND LEGAL ASPECTS (ECONET) MA/01 Ecological team Patrick Endels, Martin Hermy, Kris Verheyen, Brecht Vermote - KULeuven Laurence Leduc, Grégory Mahy – FUSAGx Economic team Aurore Di Giusto, Daniel Tyteca – UCL Social team Els Vanthournout, Wouter Verheyen, Jan Vincke – Resource Analysis Legal team Charles-Hubert Born, Laure Demez, Francis Haumont, Xavier Lombart - UCL D/2006/1191/7 Published in 2006 by the Belgian Science Policy Rue de la Science 8 Wetenschapsstraat 8 B-1000 Brussels Belgium Tel: +32 (0)2 238 34 11 – Fax: +32 (0)2 230 59 12 http://www.belspo.be Contact person: Mrs Aline van der Werf Secretariat: +32 (0)2 238 34 80 Neither the Belgian Science Policy nor any person acting on behalf of the Belgian Science Policy is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information. The authors are responsible for the content. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without indicating the reference. BELGIAN SCIENCE POLICY Wetenschapsstraat 8 Rue de la Science . B-1000 BRUXELLES - BRUSSEL Tel. 02 238 34 11 . Fax 02 230 59 12 URL : www.belspo.be Research project ECONET (MA01 – Mixed actions) FEASIBILITY OF ECOLOGICAL NETWORKS: ECOLOGICAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND LEGAL ASPECTS Final Report 2005 Ecological teams Patrick ENDELS (KULeuven), Laurence LEDUC (FUSAGx), Brecht VERMOTE (KULeuven), promotors : Grégory MAHY (FUSAGx), Kris VERHEYEN & Martin HERMY (KULeuven) Economic team (UCL) Aurore DI GIUSTO; promotor : Daniel TYTECA Social team (Resource Analysis) Els VANTHOURNOUT, Jan VINCKE, Wouter VERHEYEN Legal team (UCL) Charles-Hubert BORN, Laure DEMEZ, Xavier LOMBART, promotor : Francis HAUMONT LABORATORIUM VOOR BOS, NATUUR & LANDSCHAP KULeuven Centre Entreprise - Environnement Foreword This report includes results obtained from the ECONET research project, conducted between January 2003 and March 2005, under the auspices of the Belgian Science Policy. Ecological networks are among the most effective land planning tools that have been promoted in the last few years to control and reverse the actual dramatic process of biodiversity erosion. As such, they have a significant impact on the territory and can be viewed as competitors to other forms of landscape uses such as urban, industrial, agricultural, or recreational. However, they must not be seen as only competitors to such uses; in many instances, complementarities are possible. This implies that the problem of ecological network implementation should be analysed not only from the pure ecological perspective, but that account must be taken to legal preconditions, economic aspects, as well as perception and implication of local and societal actors. We believe our research is one of the first that attempted to integrate those complementary aspects, i.e., ecological, legal, social and economic, in the study of ecological network implementation, and even more particularly in the analysis of an actual case study. During the research, we benefited from contacts with many persons, and more especially in the scope of a Users’ Committee, with whom we organised four formal, productive meetings. Besides the representatives of the Belgian Science Policy, we would like to thank all members of the Users’ Committee, among which those who supported us and/or participated in one or several of the meetings, namely - Tim Adriaens (Instituut voor Natuurbehoud) - Sylvie Anciaux (Contrat de Rivière Dyle et affluents) - Michel Baguette (UCL – Unité d’Ecologie et de Biogéographie) - Edgard Daemen (Vlaamse Landmaatschappij – West-Vlaanderen) - Geert De Blust (Instituut voor Natuurbehoud) - Catherine Debruyne (Direction générale des Ressources naturelles et de l’Environnement – DGRNE) - Willy Delvingt (ASBL Ardenne et Gaume) - Dieter Devolder (Vlaamse Landmaatschappij – Vlaams-Brabant) - Michel Foret, Ministère de la Région Walonne,, Direction générale de l'aménagement du territoire, du logement et du patrimoine - Pierre Gérard, directeur, Centre de Recherche de la Nature, des Forêts et du Bois (MRW/DGRNE) - Marie-Céline Godin (DGRNE) - Olivier Guillitte (Natagora) - Catherine Hallet (DGRNE) - Olga Jongeneelen (Vlaamse Landmaatschappij) - Christiane Perscy (Natagora) - Kurt Sannen (Vlaamse Landmaatschappij) - Frank Saey (Afdeling Natuur, AMINAL) - Jacques Stein (DGRNE) - Jacques Sténuit (Entente Nationale pour la Protection de la Nature, Les Amis du Parc de la Dyle) - Anne Teller (European Commission, DG Environment) - Jean-Marie Tricot (Contrat de Rivière Dyle et affluents) - Bart Vercoutere (Vrienden van Heverleebos and Meerdaalwoud) The report is composed of - The complete final report; - The appendices, in three parts, the first of which includes the references; - The summary report. 2 CONTENTS PART 1: INTRODUCTION 6 PART 2: ECOLOGICAL ASPECTS 9 2.1 Theoretical background 9 2.1.1. Context of ecological networks 9 2.1.1.1. The erosion of biodiversity 9 2.1.1.2. Landscape dynamics and ecological processes 9 2.1.1.3. Landscape dynamics and population functioning 10 2.1.1.4. A short nature conservation history 11 2.1.2. The scientific basis of ecological networks 11 2.1.2.1. The theory of island biogeography 11 2.1.2.2. The metapopulation theory 12 2.1.2.3. The ecological network: a landscape strategy 13 2.1.3 The implementation of ecological network 14 2.1.3.1 Introduction 14 2.1.3.2 Habitat and species conflicts 14 2.1.3.3. Different steps 15 2.1.3.4. Examples in Europe 16 2.2. Towards an optimal ecological network in the Dyle valley: a metapopulation capacity based approach 19 2.2.1. Introduction 19 2.2.2. Material and methods 21 2.2.2.1. Selection of a study area: the Dyle valley, a cross language border ecosystem 21 2.2.2.2. A metapopulation capacity based approach 22 2.2.2.3. A pragmatic biotope approach versus a species-specific approach 28 2.2.3. Results 30 2.2.3.1. Target biotope approach 30 2.2.3.2. Species-specific approach 35 2.2.4. Discussion 36 2.2.4.1. A metapopulation capacity approach at biotope level: Interpretation and possibilities for a wider application 36 2.2.4.2. A species-specific approach to overcome the shortcomings of the analysis at biotope level? 36 2.2.4.3. Limitations of the model and suggestions for improvement 36 2.2.5. Conclusion 37 PART 3: LEGAL ASPECTS 39 3.1. General Introduction 39 3.2. Theoretical background : legal framework for ecological network implementation 39 3.2.1. Cadre juridique général de l’utilisation des sols 39 3.2.2. Planification stratégique du réseau écologique 40 3.2.3. La mise en œuvre du réseau écologique 42 3.2.3.1. Les zones protégées 42 3.2.3.2. Les instruments applicables en dehors des zones protégées 44 3.2.4. L’intégration du réseau écologique dans son contexte environnemental et humain 48 3 3.3. Case study: implementation of an ecological network in the Dyle Valley from the legal point of view 49 3.3.1. Methods 49 3.3.1.1. WP 1 : Analyse du Cadre juridique théorique 49 3.3.1.2. WP 2 : Cas pratique 49 3.3.2. Results 50 3.3.2.1. WP 2.1.: Analyse du scénario écologique optimal sous l’angle juridique 50 3.3.2.2. WP 2.2.: Analyse de la faisabilité juridique théorique des mesures de conservation proposées par les écologues 51 3.3.2.3. WP 2.3.: Analyse de la faisabilité juridique concrète des mesures de conservation proposées dans les sites échantillons – propositions juridiques de mise en œuvre 52 3.3.3. Discussion 60 3.3.3.1. Dans la partie wallonne du site échantillon n°1 60 3.3.3.2. Dans la partie flamande du site échantillon n°1 60 3.3.3.3. Remarque générale sur la représentativité de la situation juridique de la zone d’étude 61 3.4. Conclusions générales 61 PART 4: SOCIAL ASPECTS 65 4.1. General introduction 65 4.2. Theoretical framework 65 4.2.1. Introduction 65 4.2.2. General framework for the study 66 4.2.3. Perception 67 General theory 67 Perception of nature (conservation) 68 4.2.4. Impact 70 General theory 70 Impact of nature conservation 71 4.2.5. Organization of the process 71 General theory 71 The organization of a process aiming at nature conservation 73 4.2.6. Conclusions on theoretical framework 75 4.3. Case study : the Dyle valley 76 4.3.1. Perception 76 a) Perception of the natural environment 76 b) Perception of the social environment 76 4.3.2. Impact 76 4.3.3. Organization 77 a) Identification of stakeholders 77 b) Observation of own research process 78 4.3.4. Conclusion: feasibility of EN in the Dyle valley 79 4.4. Discussion and conclusions 80 a) Perception 80 b) Impact 81 c) Organization 81 d) General conclusions 82 4 PART 5: ECONOMIC ASPECTS 83 5.1. General introduction 83 5.2. Theoretical background 83 5.2.1. Economic aspects of biodiversity 83 a) The components of the value of environmental goods 83 b) Biodiversity valuation 83 c) Links between biodiversity and ecological networks 83 5.2.2. Costs and benefits of ecological network implementation 84 a) Costs 85 b) Benefits 86 c) The Net Present Value (NPV) 89 d) The situation of target actors 89 5.3. Case study 90 5.3.1. General methodology 90 5.3.2. Methodology for the case study 91 a) Costs 92 b) Benefits 95 5.3.3. Data 96 5.3.4. Results 96 5.4. General conclusion 98 PART 6: INTEGRATED CONCLUSION 99 6.1. Ecological sub-study 99 6.1.1. Methodological conclusions regarding the optimal ecological scenario 99 6.1.2.