2-10-2018

Connectivity between
protected areas as an
adaptation strategy for
biodiversity conservation
An Cliquet - Ghent University
Kris Decleer – Research Institute for Nature and Forest

IUCN AEL Conference, Ghent, 14-16 September 2010

Overview

 Impact of climate change on

biodiversity
 Connectivity

 Connectivity in international, EU &

national law
 Solutions

1
 2-10-2018

Impact of climate change on

biodiversity
 Species will migrate in search of their
optimal ‘climate space’ → shifting
range of habitats/species
 Habitat fragmentation multiplies the
impact of climate change and makes
responses to climate change more
difficult
 Current system of protection is
insufficient

Adaptation to climate
change
 There is a need to:
 Strengthen the adaptability of
ecosystems to (natural) changes and
facilitate species migrating to other
areas
 Adapting the ‘landscape approach’

2
 2-10-2018

Adaptation to climate
change
 More specifically through:
 Making core protected areas more
robust
 Taking restoration measures
 Taking measures outside protected
areas (buffering…)
 Taking connectivity measures to
enable species migration

Connectivity

 Definition IUCN:
 The maintenance and restoration of
ecosystem integrity requires landscape-
scale conservation. This can be achieved
through systems of core protected areas that
are functionally linked and buffered in ways
that maintain ecosystem processes and
allow species to survive and move, thus
ensuring that populations are viable and that
ecosystems and people are able to adapt to
land transformation and change.

3
 2-10-2018

Connectivity

 Different types of corridors:

 Corridors for specific species, depending on
dispersal capacity of species (from local to
global)
 Corridors for several species (containing
different habitat types)
 E.g. flyways for birds, linear corridor,
stepping stones, ecoducts…

Measures for connectivity

 Robust connections (= large corridor

areas)
 Measures in wider landscape (e.g.
blue and green ‘veins’, small
landscape elements,…)
 Translocation of species

4
 2-10-2018

Difficulties on connectivity

 Scientific uncertainties (which measures to

take)
 Connectivity measures are not necessarily
beneficial for all species/habitats
 No guarantee on successfull migration and
adaptation of species
 Impact of connectivity on invasive species
 Impact of migrating or translocated species on
endemic species

Connectivity in law

 Focus in law is mostly on core

protected areas
 Attention for ecological networks, but
often without specific measures for
connecting core areas
 Lack of strong legal mechanisms for
connectivity

5
 2-10-2018

Connectivity in international
law
 Protection of corridors and flyways
(e.g. Ramsar Convention…)
 Convention on Biodiversity
 Convention: obligation for ‘system of
protected areas’
 COP decisions on connectivity
• Programme of work on protected areas
(COP 7, 2004)
 Technical guidance reports
 Lack of specific legal obligations

Connectivity in EU law

 Natura 2000 network

 Continous obligation to designate
sites as Natura 2000 site (important
for newly arriving species)
 Art. 3 & 10, Habitats Directive:
provisions on connectivity measures &
restoration

6
 2-10-2018

Connectivity in EU law

 Provisions of art. 3 & 10: rather weak

 But: in light of obligation of reaching
favourable conservation status,
connectivity measures can be
mandatory!
 Obligation on favourable conservation
status is not limited to Natura 2000
sites

Connectivity in EU policy

 Commission Communication &

Biodiversity Action Plan (2006)
 Commission Communication (2010) &
Environment Council conclusions
(2010)
 White paper on adaptation to climate
change (2009)

7
 2-10-2018

Connectivity in EU policy

 Initiatives on ‘Green infrastructure’:

 Connecting habitats for species
migration
 Supporting ecosystem functions
 Urban and rural green infrastructure

 Studies on:
 Need for integration in other policy
sectors
 Guidance on ecological connectivity

Connectivity in national law

 Flanders:
 Flemish Ecological Network (Nature
Decree): interlinking corridor areas:
• No surface area target; no clear
ecological objectives; lack of legal binding
measures for stakeholders
• Result: some measures for small
landscape elements, but lack of
coherence; no robust corridors;
unsufficient bufferzones along
waterways,…

8
 2-10-2018

Solutions: what needs to be

done?
 There is a need for:
 Measures in nature conservation legislation
& in other legislation (agriculture, spatial
planning, water management…).
 Ecological objectives & coherent measures
 Restoration
 Scale of measures will depend on
species/habitats (international, European,
national, local)

Solutions: how can it be

done?
 Designate robust corridor areas as protected
areas
 Protect green infrastructure (stepping stones,
linear elements), by using legal techniques
such as direct biotope protection, imposing
obligations on owners/users…
 Strengthen legal provisions (e.g. work out
Commission guidelines on implementation of
art. 10 Habitats Directive)
 Provide financial incentives (taking into account
goods & services provided by connectivity
areas)