Suchergebnisse

Ecological compensation (EC) has been proposed as an important tool for stopping the loss of biodiversity and natural values. However, there are few studies on its actual operationalisation and there is high uncertainty about how it should be designed and implemented to be an effective way of performing nature conservation. In this study we focus on ecological compensation in Sweden, a country where it is in the process of being implemented more broadly. Using interviews and a workshop we investigate how the work with the implementation is carried out and what challenges exist. The results show that implementation of EC is at an early stage of development and there are many practical obstacles, linked to both legislation and routines in the planning processes. There is a lack of holistic perspective and large-scale thinking, a quite strong focus on a small number of individual species, and an overall attitude that anything is better than nothing, all of which can have negative consequences for biodiversity conservation overall. Based on the results we discuss the need for better integration of EC into the entire decision-making process and for a holistic approach to preservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services, by increasing the focus on landscape perspective and considering delays in compensation outcomes. There is also a need for a national level standard for EC, making good and worse examples of compensation measures available and systematic monitoring of EC projects. Finally, a spatially explicit database to document all EC areas should be introduced both to ensure consistency in protection from future development plans and to enable long-term monitoring of EC outcomes.

The EU Birds and Habitats directives (and the associated Natura 2000 network) has recently been evaluated within the so called "Fitness Check" (EC 2016). This has resulted in a new Action Plan aiming to "rapidly improve practical implementation of the Nature Directives and accelerate progress towards the EU 2020 goal of halting and reversing the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services, including in relation to climate resilience and mitigation" (EC 2017). However, not all European Countries belong to the EU and conservation efforts has clearly been taken also in the countries not belonging to EU. During this workshop we aim to explore to what extent the EU system provides added value to efforts taken at national level in non-EU countries. By contrasting the Nordic nations, we may be able to identify which aspects that are supported by international initiatives. Among the Nordic nations, Finland, Sweden and Denmark are members while Norway and Iceland are not. Although ecological differences exist, the Nordic countries share many common aspects both concerning ecosystems, environmental policies and legislation. The workshop will open with short statements given by researchers, governmental representatives and legal expertise, and include a panel discussion to which the participants are invited to contribute. The workshop will highlight what is known today about the effects of EU legalisation on conservation work, but more importantly to identify gaps in our current knowledge and pointing at new research (and possible co-operation) needed. ; peerReviewed

Background and aims – Agricultural intensification and loss of farmland heterogeneity have contributed to population declines of wild bees and other pollinators, which may have caused subsequent declines in insect-pollinated wild plants. Material and methods – Using data from 37 studies on 22 pollinator-dependent wild plant species across Europe, we investigated whether flower visitation and seed set of insect-pollinated plants decline with an increasing proportion of arable land within 1 km. Key results – Seed set increased with increasing flower visitation by bees, most of which were wild bees, but not with increasing flower visitation by other insects. Increasing proportion of arable land had a strongly variable effect on seed set and flower visitation by bees across studies. Conclusion – Factors such as landscape configuration, local habitat quality, and temporally changing resource availability (e.g. due to mass-flowering crops or honey bee hives) could have modified the effect of arable land on pollination. While our results highlight that the persistence of wild bees is crucial to maintain plant diversity, we also show that pollen limitation due to declining bee populations in homogenized agricultural landscapes is not a universal driver causing parallel losses of bees and insect-pollinated plants. ; EU FP5 QLRT-2001-01495 ; Swiss Federal Office for Science and Technology (01·0524-2) ; FORMAS ; Estonian Ministry of Education and Research IUT (IUT20-33) ; Internal Grant Agency of the Faculty of Environmental Sciences Czech University of Life Sciences Prague 42900/1312/3166 ; MC-CIG BeeFun project: PCIG14-GA-2013-631653 ; DAFM ; IRC ; Formas (2018-01466) ; German Ministry of Research and Education (FKZ: 01LC1104A) ; NKFIH project (FK123813) ; NKFIH (KKP 133839) ; European Union in the 7th Framework Programme (grant 244090), ; MTA Bolyai Fellow ; Peer reviewed

Background and aims: Agricultural intensification and loss of farmland heterogeneity have contributed to population declines of wild bees and other pollinators, which may have caused subsequent declines in insect-pollinated wild plants. Material and methods: Using data from 37 studies on 22 pollinator-dependent wild plant species across Europe, we investigated whether flower visitation and seed set of insect-pollinated plants decline with an increasing proportion of arable land within 1 km. Key results: Seed set increased with increasing flower visitation by bees, most of which were wild bees, but not with increasing flower visitation by other insects. Increasing proportion of arable land had a strongly variable effect on seed set and flower visitation by bees across studies. Conclusion:Factors such as landscape configuration, local habitat quality, and temporally changing resource availability (e.g. due to mass-flowering crops or honey bee hives) could have modified the effect of arable land on pollination. While our results highlight that the persistence of wild bees is crucial to maintain plant diversity, we also show that pollen limitation due to declining bee populations in homogenized agricultural landscapes is not a universal driver causing parallel losses of bees and insect-pollinated plants. ; The original idea was conceived aspart of the project 'STEP - Status and trends of Europeanpollinators' funded by the European Union in the 7thFramework Programme (grant 244090), which fundedRB, ISD, HGS, SP, MR, LH, JME, and KS. JE and PCwere funded by MULTAGRI/FORMAS. MA was fundedby the EU FP5 project 'Evaluating current European agri-environment schemes to quantify and improve natureconservation efforts in agricultural landscapes' (EASY;QLRT-2001-01495) and the Swiss Federal Office for Scienceand Technology (01·0524-2). AJ and EÖ were funded byFORMAS. TTe and VS were supported by institutionalresearch funding IUT (IUT20-33) of the Estonian Ministryof Education and Research, and TTe also received funding(grant no. 42900/1312/3166) from the Internal Grant Agencyof the Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech Universityof Life Sciences Prague. IB was funded by MC-CIG BeeFunproject: PCIG14-GA-2013-631653 and thanks the DoñanaNP staff members for granting access to the Park and CurroMolina for conducting the field work. JS, EFP, and SM werefunded by DAFM and IRC. LH was funded by a grant fromFormas to HGS and by a mobility grant from Formas (2018-01466). ALH was funded by the FarmLand project supportedby the German Ministry of Research and Education (FKZ:01LC1104A). AKH was supported by the NKFIH project 348Pl. Ecol. Evol.154 (3), 2021(FK123813) and was a Bolyai Fellow of MTA. PB wassupported by the NKFIH (KKP 133839).