The Role of Published Information in Reviewing Conservation Objectives for Natura 2000 Protected Areas in the European Union

Abstract

Protected areas are designated to protect species and other features known to be present at the time of designation, but over time the information about the presence of protected species may change and this should call for a continued review of conservation objectives. Published scientific literature is one of the possible information sources that would trigger a review of conservation objectives. We studied how published data on new discoveries of protected animal species were taken into account by the nature conservation authorities in updating species lists of Natura 2000 sites in the European Union, which are the basis for conservation planning at the site-level. Over the period studied (2000-2011) only 40 % of published new protected species records were recognized by the authorities. The two main reasons for this seem to be a reliance on other sources of information by authorities and the difficulty in finding relevant information in scientific papers. The latter is because published faunistic information is very fragmented among different journals, and often insufficient in details. We recommend better cooperation between authors, publishers, and nature conservation authorities in terms of information presentation, publishing policy, and a regular review of published information.

Species, Habitats, Society: An Evaluation of Research Supporting EU's Natura 2000 Network

“…This finding can be interpreted as a direct result of the ongoing efforts to expand the N2K network [1], [9], but also a reflection of the low levels of penetration of social and political sciences in the field of conservation science [46], [47], [48]. Social sciences are integral to the discipline of conservation biology [19], yet the current conceptual, methodological, and epistemic gaps between the disciplines addressing ecology and society continue to hinder social and policy research in and for conservation [36].…”

“…This finding could be partially explained by factors not directly related to the topic of the papers; for example, taxon-specific research is highly fragmented among journals [9], which may have different keyword requirements (e.g., number of keywords, avoidance of words used in title). The distribution of keywords by degree and betweenness highlighted the most frequently addressed topics within each of the study types but also revealed critical concepts that link articles within fields of study.…”

“…While this is a potential drawback, we consider this study to be a first step towards a better understanding of the trends and limitations of existing approaches to N2K research. Deeper insight into particular aspects of N2K research could be gained by using meta-analysis or systematic reviews ([62]; e.g., [9], [61]), but this was beyond the scope of this study. For example, future evidence syntheses of N2K research could focus on the evaluating emerging patterns in the social acceptance of N2K, on the conflicts generated by the implementation of sectoral policies, etc.…”

“…Most current research focuses on describing biodiversity patterns within the N2K sites, thus targeting only one of the outcomes of the social-ecological interactions. Despite the almost exclusive focus on the ecology of N2K, such information does not percolate into designing or updating N2K management plans [9], further highlighting the dichotomy between academic research and conservation practice [64].…”

“…The expansion of N2K also contributes to achieving the goals of the Convention on Biological Diversity Aichi Biodiversity Targets, a complex set of measures meant to stop biodiversity loss, encourage sustainable use of natural resources, and contribute to human well-being (EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy; http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/2020.htm). However, despite successes in extending N2K [3], [4], and progress towards identifying threats to N2K and priorities for research [5], a coherent vision for the future of these sites is lacking [6], and obstacles remain in implementing and enforcing the Habitats and Birds Directives (e.g., conflicting conservation objectives [7], lack of coordination across member states on methodologies used to assess conservation priorities [8], low penetration of scientific information in N2K management plans [9]). …”