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

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. ; These authors contributed equally to this work: Malgorzata Blicharska and Lina A. Widenfalk